Talk:Rajesh Khanna/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article has been trashed

The English is garbled, personal opinions run wild, much of the material is copyvio -- aargh. This is going to be a nasty cleanup job. I may just revert to an earlier version, before the article was attacked by fans. Zora 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is trashed by you

When there is link of very reliable source, then whatis wrong with you to delete it Zora?

Be nice and calm one, if there is anything come and discuss here. You are well-aware of the policies then why aren't you following them? Don't become "obscure" one, for us.

I don't know what policies you think I've violated, Mr. Khan. The text you keep adding seems to a copyright violation, a copy of the newspaper article that you call a "very reliable source." The article was written in sub-standard English to start, and your own shaky command of English has added to the problem. The article is full of the personal opinions of the journalist, which you are just repeating as if they were "true." They're his opinions, nothing more. Now we can cite published opinion, in the form "Journalist X said Y in his Bollywood gossip column of Z date" but in this case, I don't see much point in citing the article. Frankly, it doesn't seem all that relevant to me. We try to deal with verifiable facts, not subjective assessments about "who's hot and who's not." Zora 07:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed some text

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a film gossip column. We don't classify all movies into hits and flops, and actors into superstars and failures. Actors can be described as popular. If they're adored by fans, give referenced instances of such idolization. I removed some film-column language again. Please, M. Khan, if that's you editing from an anonymous IP -- read some of the better film star articles, like Nargis and Amitabh Bachchan. Zora 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not about Raj Kapoor, Rajesh Khanna or Sanjeev Kumar

Not upto standards

This article reads more as a star struck fans admiration and webblog then as an actual encyclopedia article. Say what you will of the reliable sources, this article requires an intensive cleaning up of it's lack of proper grammar, and terrible POV. When an author of an article actually writes: "And we feel very proud that he has maintained his image here in dirty environment of politics too, as Mr. Clean," you know there is a complete lack of objectivity. You can't actually insert yourself and opinions in an article to blatantly. The writer outright states they feel proud. What sort of encyclopedia actually states that?!? This reads as though it was written on someones web blog, that was dedicated to Rajesh Khana's worship. Cleaning the bad grammar in this article can take hours alone. And then you have to deal with someone's outrage. *sigh* Persianlor

I cleaned it up AGAIN. We have a very determined Khanna fan who knows English as a second language and doesn't quite understand NPOV yet. Zora 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jatinram

Jatinram, PLEASE don't insist on adding that material. Khanna is not a major star any longer; please stop trying to pretend that he is. Minor celebrity, yes. The FREE OF COST addition should not be in caps and is not the best wording (if it's true -- there's no reference). That list of awards is unreferenced and the "awards" seem to be extremely minor-league. Not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Zora 06:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ssefra's edits

Ssefra, affluent is richer than well-to-do; changing the adjective changes the meaning of the sentence. We probably need some more info about his family before we can decide which is more accurate. Well-to-do has always been there -- let's leave it there until we have more info. Can you do some research?

As for "exceeded all expectations" -- that just doesn't make sense. Who is expecting? What is he/she expecting? Zora 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivial awards

I removed all but the Maharashtra State awards (which Jatinram had gotten wrong -- Khanna had received only one of those awards. The rest of the "awards" come from stage shows claiming to be award ceremonies and hoping to attract stars and paying customers. Those awards are meaningless and worthless. Zora 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How come there is special award for special appearance in 1973 for Anurag? Filmfare never gave such awards and there is no mention about this on filmfare awards website or wiki page of filmfare as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.62.241 (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One film marked change from Khanna to Bachchan?

Commando303, you inserted a sentence claiming that some unspecified critics traced Khanna's fall from superstardom to a certain film. That sentence wasn't referenced in any way, and it seemed strange to me -- I have always heard that the mad success of Zanjeer started the craze for Amitabh and action movies. In fact, that's what's written in the Amitabh Bachchan article.

I removed the sentence, but if you can come up with a source, and it's a reliable source, we might want to discuss adding it as another view. Zora 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Zora, though it is true that 1973's "Zanjeer" is the film most commonly cited as Amitabh Bachchan's perhaps most "important" — his breakthrough work — carving out his "angry young man" image (which would follow him for much for his career, thereafter, and become as iconic as the actor himself), it is commonly thought, as well, that it was in Hrishikesh Mukherjee's "Namak Haraam" that Rajesh Khanna's stardom began to wane, as Bachchan's began to rise. The "Namak Haraam" instance isn't so much one of Amitabh's becoming a known name, but of his arguably "replacing" Rajesh Khanna as the reigning megastar of the Indian film industry. The reason for this is partly that, while Khanna and Bachchan had earlier worked together in "Anand" (also Mukherjee's), with "Namak Haraam," Rajesh Khanna — supposed to be the "star" of the film — was largely sleighted (by audiences and critics) in favor of Bachchan (supposed to be in a "supporting role"). I do agree that random instances of what editors of Wikipedia believe (e.g., "everybody loved Bachchan in 'Namak Haraam,' and saw therein the hack that Khanna had been all along") have no place on the site; I do not, however, feel that this claim falls into that category. Here's one example of the view; read the last line:

http://www.planetbollywood.com/Film/NamakHaraam/

Here's another (I'm not sure if it still works, though; last night, the site was down):

http://www.geocities.com/bigbachchan2/namakharaam.html

I don't feel the need to push too hard to include this point in this article, but I feel it might belong and be appreciative, nonetheless.

(Commando303)

---

Well, then, take a relevant quote from that article on Planetbollywood and say something like, "One online essayist sees Mukherjee's Namak Haraam as the defining moment: XXXXXXX." and then add the link.

That will probably require new paragraphing. Too-long paras are unreadable.

I'm not sure that an online review would be considered notable, but I'm willing to try it and see what other editors think. I hate to say that print journalism always takes precedence over online journalism, but edited, supervised journalism does, and it's not clear to me that PlanetBollywood does edit the reviews put up on the site. Zora 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument to be made that PlanetBollywood is a "good" source; it's not. That said, it's not comparatively terrible, either, and I feel that, for the purpose at hand, it's adaquate. This isn't an obscure, controversial point that should be supported by a peer-reviewed, well-written article in the "Hindustan Times"; it's a common view that many people have (as I've seen in my experience), and all I'm really looking for in making the point is some halfway-decent source that people can go to for verification of the idea's existence. PlanetBollywood'd articles also have "grammatical errors" and all that, but then, so do most "Indian" Web sites'. IndiaFM and Rediff.com are two of the more "established" names in the business, but they, too, have their "problems." Grammar and syntax aren't everything, and, again, for this purpose, I stand by the PlanetBollywood article as an "acceptable" reference.

Perhaps I'll add this point later during the day (I don't feel like doing so right now), but I'm not going to guarantee that it will be "well-written." Sorry, but it's a minor point to be covered in about a sentence's space. If you see it, and wish to adjust it, feel free to.

(Commando303)

ID Khan

ID Khan, it seems obvious to me that you're a huge fan of Rajesh Khanna. That's not at all an inherently "bad" thing insofar as your contributing to and editing this article is concerned: Often, fans make the best, most useful changes to an article, for it is they who are most well-informed about the person they're writing about, and who most care that the person is well-represented in a public sphere. I even support some of your contributions: Informing readers that Khanna defeated fellow actor, Shatrughan Sinha in a political election is certainly not an unnecessary datum to include. Likewise, it is good to let people know the school to which he went, and to inform them that he indeed had a certain name and fame in the Indian film industry during a certain period. Much of what you've written, however, is pure, unadulterated trash: "the film industry went into the gutter" after Khanna stopped working in films? Do you honestly think that's an appropriate assertion to make in an encyclopaedic article? "Glory," "sophistication," "dignity" are the things that Khanna brought to Hindi films... ? These just aren't the types of adjectives one uses when writing an objective article (which is what we should be striving for) about anyone; hell, it's the type of thing the writer of an op-ed. piece might think twice about before printing, from concern that he not expose himself as an utterly mindless "fan-boy." I also feel you go on to list far too many examples of Khanna's works in an attempt to illustrate your adulatory point about him; your "example list" is almost as long as Khanna's filmography for the 1970s and '80s. Again, I find it's good for you to try to expand and enhance the article on someone whom you seem to have a strong liking for, but much of the way in which you go about doing so is just absurd and, by most sensible means, unacceptable.

(Commando303)

Mr./Ms. Zora: Seems you are purely anti Rajesh Khanna mentality. There are so many facts included in Amitabh's wikipedia which in fact really trashed out; but describing the reality about Khanna makes you angry; WHY???????????? Yes, Rajesh Khanna's films brought GLORY, SOPHISTICATION AND DIGNITY IN HINDI FILMS; no body can deny this except Bastard like you. Do not be biased towards that begger Lambu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.61.251 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Source for data-mining: http://www.screenindia.com/fullstory.php?content_id=7148 - it is by notable film critic Bhavna Somayya. Ekantik ^talk 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article ought to mention the three relationships between Khanna and Anju Mahendru, Dimple Kapadia and Tina Munim. The Tina Munim affair was hot enough but I'm unsure if they got married or not. Ekantik ^talk 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No he was only married to Dimple. Haphar 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference has this statement

"But even more than that was Rajesh Khanna’s own contribution: his increasing lack of professionalism, his manipulation with scripts that had male co-stars fuming and ganging up in the fast-emerging multi-star film trend, his hangers-on that put off self-respecting associates and his alleged starry tantrums." Haphar (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that quote is not in the reference supplied. Are you sure you don't mean another article ? And the inability to find the quote means it's unverifiable and therefore perfectly liable to be removed. CultureDrone (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is in reference no 8, please do read the reference, and the link to this reference is given in the paragraph itself.

Haphar (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But not after the statement made - the quote was followed by an incorrect reference which is misleading. CultureDrone (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, Khanna's ego kept pace with his widening girth. When the flops started making their appearance, filmmakers began to shy away" from ref no 4, which was immediately after the statement being discussed, plus ref no 8 is in the same paragraph and at the end of a statement that refers to the statements being discussed.

Also in the statement there are comments on behaviour but no insults for the actor. Haphar (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Then check WP:CITE for positioning of references. Saying, "oh this is proved in a reference quoted somewhere in this paragraph, but not necessarily in the one indicated after the statement" is still misleading and bad practice. The quote you added was basically added in the wrong place for the references used. CultureDrone (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why was the external http://www.rajeshkhanna.net removed?

Why was the external http://www.rajeshkhanna.net removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Read our guidelines for external links: WP:ELNO. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Excessive number of dead links - impossible to verify content under WP:BLP

In attempting to verify the content of the article an amazing percentage sources have turned out to be dead links. Can you Shrik88music re-search and add the appropirate live links or actual citations or else you will need to remove content about affairs etc. that will fail the WP:V requirement for contentious material about living people. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There were no dead links found by me .just check the following links by yourself 1)one change in the article mentioned by you - Anju Mahendroo was a FASHION designer. 2) http://chatinterviews.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1258826.cms -- this interview is itself enough for three lines lines "Khanna attended St. Sebastian’s Goan High School in Girgaum, along with his friend Ravi Kapoor, who later took the stage name of Jeetendra.Their mothers were both keertan pals." and "When Jeetendra went for his first film audition it was Khanna, who tutored him."

3)http://www.rediff.com/%0Amovies/2002/sep/13dinesh.htm - reference for "Later Khanna married Dimple Kapadia in 1973 and has two daughters from the marriage." 4) http://movies.ndtv.com/PhotoDetail.aspx?Page=5&ID=6523 - ndtv is news channel of India similar to bbc - The couple separated in 1984, as his schedule kept him away much of the time and Dimple became interested in pursuing an acting career.

5) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Rajesh-Dimple-Complicated/articleshow/6541166.cms for "Following a few years of separation, the relationship between Kapadia and Khanna blossomed and remained that of close friends."

6)http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/slideshows/80s/tinamunim.htm - it mentions tina munim was romantically involved with khanna and reason for sepeartion was that she decided to leave film industry in 1987 to pursue higher studies abroad. ie for " In the eighties Tina Munim was romantically invloved with Khanna till the time she decided to leave the industry"

7)http://www.expressindia.com/news/election/fullestory.php?type=ei&content_id=30722 for "heir elder daughter Twinkle Khanna, an interior decorator and also a former Hindi film actress, is married to actor Akshay Kumar." Shrik88music (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Early life

The tone in entirely gossip magazine profile and not encyclopedic - the phrase " Punjabi boy " has no place in an encyclopedia. Active Banana (^bananaphone

it only means a boy who had his mother tongue as Punjabi which is same as that of Khanna and this boy was Ravi Kapoor! Shrik88music (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it means, it it not appropriate phrasing for an encyclopedia. It is "flowery" commentary suitable for a fan page or a puff piece in a celebrity magazine, but not for an encyclopedia. We do not "surprise" our readers with unexpected twists - we just state the facts. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

thats what has been done. present article states that ravi kapoor was another Punjabi speaking boy living in the same locality became friends with Khanna.Now they are pouplar by the names Rajesh and Jeetendra.i think now in such things we should not drag it furthur as references have been provided.no changes are necessary to the present article. infact new informations need to be addedShrik88music (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

The information isn't necessarily what is problematic, it's the way in which it's written. AB has now modified it to "Punjabi-speaking boy." Is this acceptable for you Shrik? It is less idiomatic than "Punjabi boy," which sounds a little strange to English-speaking ears. — e. ripley\^talk 19:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not AB who modified it to Punjabi speaking boy.It was me who changed it to Punjabi speaking boy.credit should go to me..... u may check the edits if u want to ! i will be happy only when the unnecessary edits and deletions are not made! do check before giving credits! this wa the version made by me where the phrase appears for the first time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=387797283 Shrik88music (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Lead section

I have again reverted the lead section to content that more appropriately follows our guidelines for the lead. WP:LEAD

The first sentance should summarize the subject of the article - Khanna was an actor and a politician.

The remainder of the lead should give a brief overview of the subject:

• he was an actor who recieved a number of awards and was called the "first superstar". (perhaps more detail could be added about the film career)
• he was an MP for a 5 year term. (perhaps more details)

The fact that "he was affectionately known" is barely encyclopedic content and should be kept for fanpage profiles, but not encyclopedia. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

affectionately called -- this word is also mentioned in the book -- the reference of which i have given.please go through the version i contributed! iam amused as to why for such silly things references are needed! anyways i have provieded the reference of a book.Its a fact that he is called as RK and Kaka by his fans and costars!

as far as Punjabi boy is concerned it only means a boy speaking Punjabi -- who was Ravi Kapoor! Shrik88music (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Shrik, what Active Banana is saying here is not that "he was affectionately known" necessarily needs a different reference, but that "he was affectionately known" does not strike an encyclopedic tone; that it reads too much like something you would read in a fan magazine, and not a dispassionate encyclopedia article. Does this make sense? A more dispassionate way to write it would be: "His fans have nicknamed him..." or something similar. In fact, perhaps his nicknames would fit better in the "other name" infobox, rather than at the top of the article. — e. ripley\^talk 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

but the truth is fans call him RK or kaka both but his relatives and cosstars from film industry have named him as Kaka! can u give me some suitable alternative scentences for writing that scentence?Shrik88music (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Give some reason why it is encyclopedic to include that data. "Its true" is not sufficient. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

mr.banana u just go through refrences already provided!! plus read them http://www.google.co.in/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=1&q=KAKA+RAJESH+KHANNA&btnG=Search+Books http://www.screenindia.com/old/fullstory.php?content_id=7148 Shrik88music (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, there are lots of content that can be verified in reliable sources. But we are writing an encyclopedic article and so we focus on the encyclopedic content not merely anything that we can find in a reliable source. What makes those nicknames worthy of being in an encyclopedia article? Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

nickname is not the perfect word actually.he is called as Kaka out of respect.in a biography facts needs to presented.activebanana there are many articles where u can contribute too.even here i find that u just do not try to find better sources for the article i provide. i very well know that what i write are facts and in addition i do provide many refernces which are not in violation of wikipedia! if at all u find any references needs to be changed u can change but y do u remove the facts bluntly? if u find any spelling error,grmatical error or if u feel the senetnce can b better represented u r free to do. but asking too many silly questions is foolish! rajesh khanna is a superstar and there are many many interviews of historians, ediotrs,filmstars,producers,directors and other articles ,books etc... Shrik88music (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Shrik, you say that he is called Kaka out of respect. Does this mean something specific? How does calling him Kaka convey respect? I am asking because if this is something widely accepted then perhaps that can be worked into the article in some fashion. But you must communicate here why it should be so. — e. ripley\^talk 22:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You again seem to be missing the point. Just because something can be verified in a reliable source does not mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia article. And yes, editwarring include WP:TRIVIA is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

if the tone needs to be changed u may do so but remove such comments like the artcile may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards...as people are ready to improve the article but u shoudl cooperate in a beter manner! Do not remove Facts in any case!Shrik88music (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have multiple times improved the tone and organization content of the Lead section only to have you revert to rambling fangush. I will not stop removal of unsourced and improperly sourced "facts". And I will continue to oppose inclusion of non-encylcopedic trivia whos inclusion is solely based on "but it is in a reliable source." Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to explain the difference: If I found a reliable source that said his favorite ice cream was pink bubble gum, even though it is a fact in a reliable source it is not worthy of inclusion in the article. If i found a reliable source that said his favorite ice cream was pink bubble gum and that is why he titled the first script he wrote Pink Bubblegum Ice Cream, then that would be worthy of including in the article. If I found a reliable source that said he was O+ blood type, that would not be worthy of including in an encyclopedia article even though it is a fact in a reliable source. If however, he became involved in a campaign encouraging other "Universal donors" of blood type O+ to give blood, then it would be worthy of including in the article. Someones nicknames, simply because they exist and can be documented fall in the first category of "so what" and should not be included in an encyclopedia even though they may be sourced in a reliable source. Active Banana (^bananaphone

AB, thank you for a very patient explanation. Shrik, AB is correct in this interpretation of policy. Simply because there is a fact that can be verified does not mean that it should be included in an article. Can you imagine how long and unwieldy our articles would be if they included every fact about everything? We must pick and choose what are the most relevant and most important pieces of information to convey about someone. If you think a fact is important and needs to be included, and AB disagrees with you, then you need to explain why you think it's important. Discussion here is paramount, the strength of your arguments is important. — e. ripley\^talk 22:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

both of u r not getting the point. the blood group ,favorite bubble gum , favourite color,hobbies etc.. these things are DEFINITELY IRRELAVANT but the things which have been contributed by me are all very very significant.Kaka - this word is a Punjabi word.He is called as Kaka or Rk by people of India.thats a fact and i dont think it should be put into category of "Simply because there is a fact that can be verified does not mean that it should be included in an article". the things i have spoken about ie. him travelling in MG car in struggling days , him being called as Kaka are all very much relevant.Also i have not put something which is absoluely of no importance!!India is a developing country and had so many poor people and many actors have had rag to riches kind of lifes ie they struggled hard in thier childhood coming from poor family etc.... but rajesh khanna was son of rich man and so could afford to travel in MG car around theatres for work in films and in addition his family had no connections with film industry and he became interested in acting in films in spite of being rich...these things were much talked about things especially in seventies i started editing this article only coz before i edited this artcile most of the IMPORTANT and Relevant things were not present in the article. i myself compare and debate with myself whether this fact is worth to be mentioned?Shrik88music (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, after reading this explanation I still don't understand why this word, Kaka, conveys respect. What does it mean in English? Is this something that is widely used to convey respect? Understand, we don't speak Punjabi, so we have no way to understand why this is so. We need you to help explain it to us. — e. ripley\^talk 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep claiming this trivial items are relevant simply because you say they are without providing any reliably sourced content to back your claims that they are not trivia. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

iam claiming???? oh my god am i claiming or providing facts with verifiable references? ohh its better u do proper research before blaming or accusing me of just claiming things as being facts...all of them are very much verifiable and i have provided references. now its time to move ahead and add the other informations in future.whatever is present in the article is very much importantShrik88music (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, just because information is verifiable and sourced to a reliable source does not mean that it should automatically be included in an article; please read what Wikipedia is not. Here is an example. Our article about Madonna (entertainer) does not include any reference to the gap between her two front teeth, even though it's been mentioned in many reliable sources and is a highly recognizable physical feature of hers. It simply was not judged as important enough to a biography of her to include it. In short, we have to exercise editorial judgment, and different editors may disagree about what is appropriate for inclusion and what is not, even though what's in dispute may be properly sourced. Does this make sense? — e. ripley\^talk 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

what i have provided till now they cannot be counted as coming under the category of " "Simply because there is a fact that can be verified does not mean that it should be included in an article"" as they are all very very much relevant.... madonna example was a good one and i already know that. i provide only those information which are not only verifiable facts but also are facts of the kind which needs to be mentioned in such a wikipedia which is a long term projectShrik88music (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well, you clearly feel that the information is relevant enough for inclusion and it's good that you understand that it's a different threshold to pass than verifiability. However, Active Banana disagrees with your position. That means that you have a content dispute that must be resolved without edit warring. In this, neither of your opinions trumps the other. I would recommend that you take the edits piece by piece, and try to come to some agreement about them. If you can't, then you will need to seek some form of dispute resolution, perhaps a third opinion. — e. ripley\^talk 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All india contest

The climax to this 1965 Filmfare show show was the introduction of the Filmfare–United Producers Talent Contest. The eight chosen ones, shortlisted from more than 10,000 star aspirants walked out of life-sized gift boxes. Amongst these eight were Rajesh Khanna, Subhash Ghai and Farida Jalal. Now you know where such stars were discovered. On our very own Filmfare stage. http://www.filmfare.com/articles/terrific-25-15-770.html

this link says that Rajesh Khanna was among the eight finalists selected from ten thousand ones. But AB is not mentioning that Rajesh Khanna won that Conetest as can be seen from the following links http://www.screenindia.com/news/The-original-superstar/327356/ in the finals. and http://entertainment.in.msn.com/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=4155691&page=3.

the para goes “Rajesh Khanna won our United Producers’ acting competition. I was making another film at the time and my friend G.P.Sippy gave him a break with Raaz. But it was only after Aradhana that he became a superstar. He was a naturally good actor. Even during the competition, he had spoken his lines so well. His strength was how he understood a character in a script."

AB now add them as refernces and re write the scenetnce as " Rajesh Khanna was one of eight finalists in the 1965 All India Talent Contest organised by United Producers and Filmfare from more than ten thousand contestants.He won All India Talent Contest by board of jury such as Guru Datta, Bimal Roy, G.P.Sippy, B.R.Chopra and Shakti Smanta."

for name of judges refer this site - http://www.hindilyrics.net/profiles/rajesh-khanna.html Shrik88music (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Encouraging discussion

Hello - I have recently begun helping Shrik88music in a mentorship arrangement and am trying to encourage him to make better use of article talk pages. As I've browsed through the article history here I've seen most of the discussion happening in edit summaries. As I am encouraging Shrik88music to use talk pages to discuss reverts or contentious edits, I would ask other editors participating here to do the same. — e. ripley\^talk 19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

some of the users are just without properly goin through the references given are deleting the artcile about khanna.the article put in wikipedia is very much relaible as sources are the reputed newspapers,interviews,film magazines,books etc.. Its rediculous to even dispute Khanna's superstar status in India. when there is reference to prove his achievements in his career then there shouldn't be unnecessary editing that too in a way that many FACTS are removed. Shrik88music (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please dont accuse me of not reviewing the "sources". Sometimes I have and found that the source does not actually support the article text. Sometimes I have and found that the "source" does not meet the WP:RS requirements. And sometimes there were just so many other obviously bad inclusions that to work through the everything to find what might be acceptable was just too much work. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And today after I have carefully reviewed the sources I have repeated found that your interpretation of the content is serious off. Your content "Khanna dated Anju Mahendru but the copule drifted apart " the source says they lived together for 7 years - thats not "dating". You stated that "the copule drifted apart " - when the source is essentially silent on that point, and yet other sources that you included later suggest that the breakup was way more rocky than "drifting apart" and resulted in the two not speaking for 17 years. I have grave troubles in trusting your interpretations of any of the sources. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

all references i have provided below specially for u.You keep talking of having seen some references have been not proper etc.... Why do u claim before checking refernces properly ....now incorporate them again in the article the references which i have providedShrik88music (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

live in relationships were not practiced in India in that period.anju mahendru was his girlfriend since 1966.But their relationship ended in 1972.they were in this boyfriend girlfriend relationship for 7 years.change the sentence again properly.For she being called girlfriend or saying that they were dating each-other you may provide the following reference http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2003/05/30/stories/2003053001200100.htm and http://www.rediff.com/movies/2003/jan/16bolly.htm.They were madly in love with eachother but she never appreciated khanna for his performances.The world was after khanna and khanna was after anju. for your satisfaction - http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050304/asp/etc/story_4440550.asp Khanna dumped her so it was written that they drifted apart. anju had affair with Gary Sobers after her breakup with Khanna.Shrik88music (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Our source clearly states that live in relationships DID occur in India at this time, at least between Mahendru and Khanna. we report what the reliable sources state. And you had not provided any sources to support the article claiming that "they drifted apart".Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

the Telegraph piece linked above is not suitble. No content that starts "Slrrp! Slrrp!" is going to meet WP:BLP the highest reliability for accuracy and fact checking. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And your content from the Hindu is "What made middle-aged Rajesh Khanna drop long-time girl friend Anju Mahendru and tie the knot with teenaged Dimple? " - again gossip columns even if in typically reliable sources are not appropriate. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i dont have a problem in you saying they lived in together but they did drift apart or not??? "Khanna and designer Anju Mahendru lived together for several years"-- whats this???? they were together in a relationship only for 7 years. mention that she was a fashion designer. thier realtion ship ended in 1972. so now u may provide it in your own scenetnce.Shrik88music (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have included what can be verified by the current sources for the article. They lived together for ~7 years, then they separated and didnt talk for over 15 years. If you want to include more details about the relationship and the break up and the intervening years, you will need to provide suitable sources that discuss and analyse the relationship. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

as far as anju is concerned i dont want to include any information furthur. they were in relationship as boy friend girlfriend for 7 years and then they broke up in 1972.after 17 years they started speaking and then again became friends.this much does ur article contain u may checkShrik88music (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All India contest dispute

For convenience and to help this go a little more smoothly, I'll get the discussion started about the "All India Contest" line.

Shrik's preferred version is:

He won All India Talent Contest which was judged by directors like Guru Datta, Bimal Roy, G.P.Sippy, B.R.Chopra and Shakti Samanta.

AB has removed that sentence and the references.

My opinion is that the MSN link could be considered reliable. I'm not sure about the Screen India link, it appears to be an entertainment news site; it seems to have at least some professional oversight but I'll leave that to others to judge. In any case, it does not say anything about who the judges were at the All India Talent Contest, so it can't be used to source who judged it (though, it could be used to source that he won the contest). Hindilyrics.net is not a reliable source. — e. ripley\^talk 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if the Screen India site is a reliable source, in amongst all the hyperbole I am still unable to find any verification of the claim that "it was judged by directors like Guru Datta, Bimal Roy, G.P.Sippy, B.R.Chopra and Shakti Samanta" Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And there is nothing in the [1] site that indicates that this is a site that is known for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems that we have a reliable source for the fact that he won the contest, but not who judged it. Shrik, if you want to include who judged it, you need a better source for the information. Do you have such a thing? — e. ripley\^talk 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.hindilyrics.net/profiles/rajesh-khanna.html - it does mention who were the judges and in addition samanta's interview does prove samanta nad GP Sippy were judges. e ripley dont get trapped into AB 's comments.He is not that inncocent. see the link. hindilyrics is a site containing all bollywood songs. how does that become irrleaible? if he is not confident of ther names then he needs to provide the names of GP Sippy and Shakti Samanta as its clearly visible ( source is very much relaible too).Shrik88music (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Our reliable sources policy states: As a general rule, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. I can't see any information on hindilyrics.net that shows that there is anyone there checking facts or scrutinizing writing. How does this source meet our criteria for reliability? I don't see that it does. — e. ripley\^talk 20:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i have pro actively replied to this question already. see this link http://www.screenindia.com/news/The-original-superstar/327356/ -- samanta says he, sippy were judges ..atleast their names must be mentioned for now. plus what about other informations which he was not incorporating --- i directly made the changes and put them in order.also there is something called as information which is not available online. In India online sources began obly from year 2000. when already sippy and samanta names r available then i need to provide only links for fact that datta, bimal roy were also in panel right? then if that minutely , u need refrence then leave those names but show Samanta and G.P.Sippy's name. many information is not available inline as khanna was active from 1966-1991 and computer started to be used in India extensively only from 2000.Shrik88music (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that here? I'm missing it. It says he won the competition, but nowhere does it say who judged it. — e. ripley\^talk 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

still u did get it! read this para Shakti Samanta about Khanna He should come back to films!' “He was a good actor and a good-hearted man. But after he made a name for himself, he shifted a bit from his goodness! He joined politics and left movies. I wish he would come back and concentrate on films.”Rajesh Khanna won our United Producers’ acting competition. I was making another film at the time and my friend G.P.Sippy gave him a break with Raaz" --- United Prducers -- that included Shakti Smanta , G.P Sippy....Shrik88music (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The text you're quoting here indicates that Smanta's production company was involved with organizing or hosting the contest, but it doesn't say he personally judged it. That requires a leap of logic that is not supported by this information. Do you have another source? — e. ripley\^talk 21:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

nopes his prduction company was not United Prducers. It was Samanta Enterprises ie Shakti Films!!!! - proof http://www.screenindia.com/news/Reinventing-itself/396722/ http://www.screenindia.com/story.php?id=396722&pg=-1

GP Sippy , Bimal Roy,Samanta, Subbu Rao,BR Chopra were running this United Producers competition. u have interpreted wrongly the sentence. that senetnce which i showed u only has one meaning ie. sippy and he were judges of United Prducers acting competition.Shrik88music (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.screenindia.com/old/20010216/cover.htm - says Rajesh Khanna was under a contract with the United Producers and so available to us. http://www.screenindia.com/old/20020322/ftribute.html says - The film was realistic, a complete departure from the films that I had made till then, and remains my only film where I did not offer pure entertainment. G.P. Sippy and I were the first to sign Rajesh Khanna, who had won the Filmfare-United Producers’ Talent Contest. Shrik88music (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be combining bits of information from multiple sources to come to conclusions that are not specifically mentioned in either of the sources. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And is there any reason why the names of the judges matter? - again WP:IINFO just because we can find something in a reliable source (if in this case we are actually able to find it in a source) doesnt mean that it should be included in the article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i have given the reasons for y its not easily available online. plus everything need not be available online in a ready-made manner. Samanta and GP Sippy were part of United Producers this can be understood by that samanta's interview where he says OUR Acting Competition. try to interpret the sentence.Samanta's production house is separate , GP Sippy's production house is separate etc...

by the way u r very much interested in arguing about this as sources are not available directly but what about others which have not been incorporated inspite of refernces where directly everything is available???? Shrik88music (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

judges were being mentioned because the judges got chance to direct films starring Khanna.he had blockbusters in line from Aradhana.prize won by khanna was a film with each of the judges. these judges subsequently became his directors.khanna was unknown name at that time and after Aradhana even these producers benifitted. interview clearly states United Producers - consisted of Samanta , SGP Sippy atleast-- if noone then Samanta 's name atleast should appear as being in that panel of judges of the contest.Shrik88music (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be available online, but they do need to specifically be able to verify the content in the article. And given the number of times that I have seen that the content that you want to add to the article does not accurately reflect what the source actually says, I am hesitant to believe any content claims that I cannot personally verify. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

given the number of times that I have seen that the content that you want to add to the article does not accurately reflect what the source actually says - thius claim of urs have always proved wrong.....number of times???? all the reaplies to ur commets like citation needed and dead links i have already given ----- that proves u failed to get get access to the links properly and after seeing tghe links u were unable to understand the inner meaning of all the information have provided!!!Shrik88music (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be available online -- this is first point 2)but they do need to specifically be able to verify the content in the article --this even i know very well - all readers will be able to understand through the references that the line written in wiki is the summary of the info written in the link given.there need not be direct references. this reply applies to early life as well as the contest. 3)there can be some lines for which no reference is provided only cause even though they are facts , unfortunately no online source is available!! 4)who r u to decided whether its believable or not! e ripley says i have to assume that a person like u is working in good faith  !!!! the present references and the words inserted by me in article is LOGICAL. Shrik88music (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Shrik, I took you through this exercise because I wanted you to see just exactly how policy is applied here in terms of what sources can be used and why, and what sources can't be used and why. Hopefully you have learned something from the exercise about what sources can be considered reliable and why, and why we must be precise in summarizing what sources that are reliable in fact say. Would you like to try another exercise with another example of text that has been disputed? I will, if you think it would be helpful. — e. ripley\^talk 13:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

whats the issue

the info obtained from the below links are valid. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2003/04/18/stories/2003041800080100.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13056306/10-Most-Romantic-Screencouples-of-All-Time

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13056306/10-Most-Romantic-Screencouples-of-All-Time

y whats the issue??? i have added whats written in the source.this info is vital. In the eighties, he formed popular on-screen pairs with Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon.---its written very clearly in http://entertainment.in.msn.com/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=4155691&page=6 i think those who are reverting are doing it purposely.. Quicklight (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything that has been published is not suitable for Wikipedia, to start with. Secondly, text in Wikipedia pages must not be taken straight from other sources. Sources can be used as the basis of information, not of sentences. The "popular on-screen pairs" sentence is not only not neutrally phrased but it is a copyright violation from this web site. Why is it "vital info" to change "costarred" to "formed popular on-screen pairs with"? It does not add any encyclopedic information to the article.

The rest of this edit (which is the one under discussion), the part starting with "There was magic in the pairing..." was removed not only because some of it is a copyright violation but also because it breaks the neutral point of view which is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. It is not encyclopedic information, it is not factual, it is written in a style that is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy, and it is a copyright infringement. --bonadea contributions talk 16:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

here lies the point. khanna has acted with many heroines like zarina wahab , moon moon sen , deepika , neelam , jayaprada , sadhana, nanda etc.. and has given hits too as per box office records. but the the entertainment one artcile by itself is mentioning in particular the names of Poonam, Tina Munim , Mumtaz , Sharmila ,Asha Parekh ,Hema Malini ,Smita and Shabana -- was that khanna had established a hit pair with them ensuring that they did diverse films of different genres crime , mystery , social , political , horror, actions , romantic films together.

he costarred for that matter with many heroines and has given hits with them too.so its vital to get the point right. at your convenience it cannot be said that "he costarred" - when even the line in reference says popular onscreen pairs".

i do understand the need to be neutral but the fact is -- its directly mentioned and accepted fact in indian film industry that khanna formed a hit pair with these actresses in particular.Quicklight (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) his pairing with -- Poonam, Tina Munim , Mumtaz , Sharmila ,Asha Parekh ,Hema Malini ,Smita and Shabana -- resulted in huge hits. he formed hit pairs with them. to solve the copyright issue i request the above editors to incorporate the info which i pasted, in their own words. but by just mentioning he costarred its just not done. fact needs to be mentioned - that he formed hit pair with them .Quicklight (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. What do you think of something on the lines of

He appeared in many romantic and social melodramas, costarring with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini and Tina Munim in films from a range of different genres. While Khandra also starred together with many other actresses, these pairings proved to be particularly popular with the audiences, and were referred to as "hit pairings" [insert reference here]. In the 1980s, he starred in films together with Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon, which resulted in equally popular on-screen pairs. [insert reference here]

This text is not wonderful, I think my grammar and phrasing could be improved a bit, but maybe it could serve as a starting point? --bonadea contributions talk 18:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(and yes, I realise that I, too, used "popular on-screen pairs". As I say to the students I tutor, sometimes it's very hard to define what is and what isn't plagiarism/a copyright violation, because there is a limited number of ways you can phrase the same information! I'll ask Moonriddengirl who is great with copyright issues.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Quicklight (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

quicklight u are going through same problem which i have been going through.the problem is most of the editors are not indians and they dont know anything about hindi films. i always keep saying the same thing that instaed of reverting an artcile why not improve the artcile? if at all there was copyright violation instaed of saying words like you would be blocked etc... softly they could have said that they want to revert it and want to discuss in talk page . also when its clear that according to wiki policy the sentences needs to be modified and not directly copy pasted...ie if we want to borrow more than 1 line then we have to modify ,they could have easily made ---iam referring to the para of sharmila-rajesh khanna which you wanted to inroduce.

e ripley , moongirl,hebrides - these three are very helpful and they would definitely help u in solving the wiki related problems but genaic would never rectify the mistakes pertaining to removal of facts made by her. many a times i have explained that since india became online only after 2000 and khanna's rule is from 1969-1991 sometimes sources are not possible. but you will find that i have always provided informations with the necessary links. carry on your with your noble workShrik88music (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC) bonadea is also helpful with respect to correcting grammatical mistakes but she also some times...i am sure unknowingly reverts articles especially those which i have contributed to.Shrik88music (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your attempted "explanation" is not a valid one. A reliable source is a reliable source and reliable sources are needed to substantiate claims made in Wikipedia articles. Period. And they are most definitely required for claims about living people. There is no "Well our country didnt go online until a few years ago" exemption to allow substandard sources. If you cannot find a relible source on line or supply a proper citation to a reliable print source you CANNOT add claims to articles. Its as simple as that. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

2nd and more imp issue

I've removed this content, as some of it was copied from external sources. Even the proposed modification was unusable. (cf. [2]) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Rajeshkhanna1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rajeshkhanna1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Rajesh-khanna 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rajesh-khanna 2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro

intros are provided in many artciles espcially of any film star , so if anywhere with references, intro is given , then it does not amount to wastage of information. eg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan, ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aamir_khan, even amitabh bachchan. Wantnovels (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean intros should contain WP:POV and have unsourced or poorly sourced (oneindia is not a reliable source) edits. Please read WP:LEAD. The intro should summarise the article, not glorify the actor with fan-led descriptions. Also see WP:UNDUE. Information presented in a biography article must be relevant and coherent. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

Rajesh Khanna passed away http://www.asia-pacific-news.net/2012/07/bollywoods-first-superstar-rajesh.html 101.210.206.38 (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, the article is being updated. Thank you. Lynch7 08:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

AB's article not properly referenced

This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of a copyright. - fantastic reason!!! u either ask me for references or ask for the same word to appear in the reference !!! references are provided openly to prove that the sentence written in the article is a fact. it's a proof. there need not be same word used in the link given . also when sentence is framed in our own words , considering the info given in the link u have raised hue and cry. U R NOT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE IN NAY WAY. also in adult life section references provided by u are not proper -- provide them---"but did not complete the divorce proceedings". It's written blossomed coz Dimple has accepted in that screen article they are friends,they attend parties together. anyway, provide the link properly!!!Shrik88music (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC).68.193.2.168 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"but did not complete the divorce proceedings" - provide proper reference for this sentence.Shrik88music (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I pasted the wrong source in the footnote - it's one of the ones already in use in that section, but I cannot find it right now, will correct it later. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

u add it later. i will make the needed chages. but y now u have put that maintainace tag and copyright tag unnecessarily when if at all there is chance of violation u can easily change the wordings but without compromising on the info provided? remove those tags and replace them if there is some violation or if u can add beter wordingsShrik88music (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

the actress too refused to sign the divorce papers - these line from link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Rajesh-Dimple-Complicated/articleshow/6541166.cmsShrik88music (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC) "new paragraph for new topic"-- whats this???? the first para is looking really bad coz of the space between the lines.His nicknames and he was politicain that should appear with the other lines in irtoduction para. Kaka is his name - there is nothing to discuss on that matter. infact the discussion is irrelavnt!Shrik88music (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead yet again

In English, when you start a new idea you start a new paragraph.

We have the lead sentence which gives an overview of the subject of the article.

Then we have a new paragraph on a new topic: the acting awards he has won.

Then we have a new paragraph on a new topic: his political career. This has nothing to do with his acting awards mentioned earlier and so goes into a new paragraph.

Then we have the random statement about his nicknames which you keep stating are important and need to be kept but never provide any sources to show why other than your claim that they are important. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

I created this sub-heading and added a sentence with a proper citation.

I don't know why the heading as well as the content has been removed.

Sachi bbsr (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC) TRIVIA : Rajesh Khanna was separated from his wife Dimple Kapadia in 1982 itself. But, the write-up in the Template below his photograph indicates as " 1984. " 68.193.2.168 (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC) In the main article too, under the sub-title ' Adult Life, ' it has been written that Khanna and Dimple Kapadia got separated in 1984. That was the year when Dimple had resumed her acting career in films, they were actually separated in 1982 itself.68.193.2.168 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC) For information on this issue, the Wikipedia article on Dimple Kapadia biography may be seen.68.193.2.168 (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to add a list of the movies featuring this Superstar

I would like to request the Wikipedians to make a list of movies of this Superstar and add to this page. Guitaristrock (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It already exists: Rajesh Khanna filmography. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks !!! Guitaristrock (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

Rajesh Khanna was Born in Burewala, Punjab Pakistan. His Father was First Head Master of M.C.School Burewala. He retired on March, 1947 and went to Amrister with his family. Rajesh Khanna studied class-1 in the same school where his father was Head Master.

QiratQamar ([[User

talk:QiratQamar|talk]]) 19:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support that claim? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide references for your claims.Please follow the Wikipedia policy . Guitaristrock (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Refer to the following link [[3]] for information on Rajesh Khanna real birth place . Please anybody volunteer to write these facts in this article as a tribute to this great legend Guitaristrock (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

added. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Later retracted, this is contested as sources conflict. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Real Name of Rajesh Khanna was Jatin Arora

I would like to request the Wikipedians to correct the real name of Rajesh Khanna as born to Jatin Arora and not Jatin Khanna. He was born Jatin Arora, and then he was raised by foster parents who were Khannas, and hence he was named Jatin Khanna.

[4]

[5]

Ravi Matah (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

done. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Last Movie of Rajesh Khanna - Riyasat

In the later career section it needs to be mentioned that Riyasat is the last movie of Rajesh Khanna and he shot for it untill 6 days before he fell ill and shooting had begun in 2011. Riyast will release on Dec 28, 2012. Reference is http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Rajesh-Khannas-last-film-to-be-released-in-December/articleshow/15052167.cms. After Riyasat gets released in 2012, he would have appeared in exact 164 feature films, 107 as the solo lead hero. So changes have to be made.Onceshook1 (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Users - edit only if u have something to add as facts alone have been incorporated in Rajesh khanna article

Great super star Rajesh Khanna was born in Bhuray Wala Punjab (British India) now Pakistan, this information should be added in Wikipidia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.218.216 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

some of the users are just without properly goin through the references given are deleting the artcile about khanna.the article put in wikipedia is very much relaible as sources are the reputed newspapers,interviews,film magazines,books etc.. Its rediculous to even dispute Khanna's superstar status in India. when there is reference to prove his achievements in his career then there shouldn't be unnecessary editing that too in a way that many FACTS are removedShrik88music (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana makes some valid points. Just because a piece of information may be properly sourced does not necessarily mean it should be in an article at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of every fact about a subject. Editors are expected to use good judgment in selecting what material is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and what is not. — e. ripley\^talk 20:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

the refernces and the information i have provided about khanna's adult life,school,college,struggle in a car etc are not just other information! i wont add any information which is irrelavant and iam adding only those information which is known since ages! there are litle more things which are to be added but first let this much information remain undisputed!Shrik88music (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly there is a dispute about what information can be considered encyclopedic and what cannot among editors that are present on this page, at the moment primarily you and AB. That means that you must discuss these differences, and attempt to come to a consensus about it. If you can't come to a consensus without edit warring, then you can consider some forms of dispute resolution. Just remember that Wikipedia is a long-term project, this article will suffer more from edit warring than from having a piece of information removed from the article for further discussion for a period of time. — e. ripley\^talk 22:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now AB has task of now resurrecting the artcile properly as he has been provoided with all the necessary links . please ask him to now remove his comments - citation needed and replace them with the links i have given.You can also go through the links.Shrik88music (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to remove the tags until I or some other editor has had a chance to review the entire article. I am only in the second section of the main article and have found issues with nearly every source or claim. The tags will remain until the potential issues have been cleared. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

first of all i have proved ur claims as wrong ie. they are dead links and that citation needed. whatever reference i have given that u need to incorporate. as u are disrespecting the actor by putting such comments.there are many readers who may read the artcile which is at present looking dirty with such comments.i have provided all the refernces u asked for. why are u now finding it difficult in putting together all the information i gave?its very easy to remove sentences but difficult to provide facts.u have provided comments in early life and adult life section and that needs to be removed first.this is matter of principle i mean basic ethics!! Shrik88music (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not our duty to "respect the actor". We are here to accurately and without bias present the content that we can verify as having been published in reliable sources. If you want to pay tribute to the actor, you will need to go somewhere else and start your own fan page.Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet again, no just because something is presented as having been in a source it does NOT mean that it needs to be included in the article.. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

that job u r not doing properly!! u r going against basic ethics!! u made statements like none of ur sources are relaible, provide me links, all are dead links, citations are needed etc..very confidently thinking i wouldnt have the proper sources. now i have done what u asked for. incorporate them before asking for more from other sections. u need not advice me on whether i should write on some fan site. u r proving that u r here not to fruitfully contribute to the artcile. thinking that u may b having serious intentions of frutfullty contributing i gave u all the refernces u asked for. the replies i sent u contained everything -- replies to all questions u askedShrik88music (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

just because something is presented as having been in a source it does NOT mean that it needs to be included in the article. - this statement of urs just doesnt make any sense. all new refernces provided...i wont get repetative like u.iam not biased like u infact.Shrik88music (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My job is to ensure that the content in articles accurately as possible meets the Wikipedia content gudielines of WP:V / WP:OR / WP:NPOV and is presented in grammatically comprehensible English. Period. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

in short even after u receive the replies to ur comments u wont incorporate the needed changes properly!!! Shrik88music (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in short, I am not here to do your work for you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of why this is difficult is because there is a lot of editing going on here. It's hard to discuss individual points when you both are making so many edits at once (or in smaller bites). Shrik, let's try this. Put together a paragraph or sentence of information that you would like to see added to the article, or that you don't understand why was removed from the article, post it here in the talk page in a new section, and we can all discuss it. Then you can see a little more clearly why it is or isn't acceptable. Okay? — e. ripley\^talk 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

E Ripley for ur convinience please go thru the section "Excessive number of dead links - impossible to verify content under WP:BLP" and All India Contest. Ripley AB is not here to contribute to the artcile effectively otherwise why would he have not incorporated the facts which he had asked for immediately in the same way he would hve deleted scenences or made comments like citatios needs, ref needed etc.. i provided him the refernces but today full day he has not incorporated tem into the article.Shrik88music (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is contributing in good faith just as much as you are. You simply have a disagreement about the content of the article. Please focus on that disagreement. My suggestion, again, is that you put together the text of information you would like to see incorporated into the article, or changed from its current text, and then we can discuss why it is or is not appropriate. As it is, you're disagreeing through edit warring again without sufficient discussion and you won't get anywhere doing that. — e. ripley\^talk 19:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

surprising e ripley again u r giving piece of advice. from the discussions as laid below i think u shud b able to observe that i have provided him all the explanations which he had asked for. but throught the day he has noit bothered to make the changes to the artcile. so i by myself made those changes. infact its double work for me and waste of my time. i gave him reply first then later on saw he didnt make achanges and then he also says he wont make those useful changes ...its then that i put up that version which is authentic. am i working for AB? AB is engaging in edit war but by making refernces to wiki policies is covering up himself!iam imrovising the artcile daily.. Shrik88music (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am attempting to work through the sources in the article and verify that the sources back up the claims made. When you then revert to versions which have claims about living people that are grossly misrepresenting what the sources actually say, I will revert. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

use liitle bit comman sense too. word to word same things need not be copied from some article.the meaning should be the same in the artcile.in our own words v do can write summarising the point. dont bluff here.u keep reverting ...i know u r not going to FRUITFULLY CONTRIBUTE. u will neither find sources urself nor incorporate facts needed to be mentioned. u will only point the negetives ( even if there are not any)20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Shrik88music (talk)

"Reactions" in death section

The section is nothing but a collection of eulogies. I suggest that we remove it completely or curtail it. Thoughts? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove completely. Cut some important ones and move to "Illness and death" section. But its better to leave it so for few days. Many fans would keep adding it back. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Anita Advani

Anita Advani was removed from the article saying "Anita Advani only claims to be live in partner and has filed a notice claiming to be same to get property. But its not truth til court decides". But newspaper references say that she was Khanna's partner, not that she claims to be his partner. The court will only decide about the property she claims.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your point.Indian media puts everything in confusing way,specially some news channels.Sometime i feel their info. shouldn't considered as reliable sources.Anita Advani have been the subject of conjecture.Must Wait for court's decision Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 09:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Anita Advani only claims to be a live in partner of Rajesh Khanna, after his death. Otherwise she always maintained she was a freind. Till the verdict of court is out, here in wiki we cannot consider her as a partner of Khanna. She has claimed in the legal notice sent to family members of Khanna, only to claim his property. So her name should be removed from main box as well as from Relationships section.Onceshook1 (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Till now there is no proof of that she was really a live in partner of Khanna. Untill court verdict is out that she was in real a live in partner , wiki should not declare her to be partner. References http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-21/news-interviews/32776430_1_rajesh-khanna-anita-advani-legal-notice and http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Tabloid/Rajesh-Khanna-s-live-in-partner-sends-legal-notice/Article1-892614.aspx Onceshook1 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Todo list

I plan to nominate the article for GA. The article needs attention on following issues(many of them are not related with GA):

• More images needed in the article.
• There is a need of citation overkill in many places.
• His final words tweeted by Amitabh Bachchan could be mentioned in some colored box.
• The layout style of the Filmography section could be proper. It looks weird at the moment.
• The popular dialogues could be mentioned in the colored boxes.
• References section needs to be done according MOS.

Regards, theTigerKing  17:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There's hardly any free image available(except funeral) rather than non-free.Do not nominate it for either GA or FA.Article needs huge work to do. Rated as C-class so most importantly copy editing.Wait until issues gets resolved Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 09:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No tweet can be found on Amitabh Bachchan's twitter account. Which means he has deleted it and thus we can say that he too doesn't stand by it. He was told by someone that those were his last words so there is no certainty that the man is saying the truth. Boseritwik (talk) July 22, 2012 01:19 (UTC)

The tweet in Amitabh's account is still there. https://twitter.com/SrBachchan is the account of Bachchan and tweet reads "his last words were 'time up ho gaya - pack up !!'"Onceshook1 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Moreover there are more references of last words of Rajesh Khanna - http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rajesh-khannas-last-words-were-pack-up/272201-8-66.htmlOnceshook1 (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. And in any case, reporting that somebody claimed that someone's last words were this or that is not encyclopedic information. --bonadea contributions talk 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Playback Singinng

He also did some playback singing in movies like Baharon Ke Sapne, Safar, Shehzade, Amar Prem, Daag, Prem Nagar, Ajnabee and flm souten. Reference - http://www.worldlatesttrends.com/2012/07/rajesh-khanna-hindi-film-career.html and IMDB of each of these films.Onceshook1 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.worldlatesttrends.com/2012/07/rajesh-khanna-hindi-film-career.html this can't be considered as reliable source.I recommend you to visit here to know what exactly reliable source mean.Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 09:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Imdb also credits Khanna for singing the songs in above films.And even from the video of these particular songs its clear that Khanna does sing or mouths dialogues during the song.Onceshook1 (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know so he did playback singing for two films which are listed on the article. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The way Khanna recites dialogues in the song Haan Toh Main Kya from Raja Rani, the same way he recites in songs like - Nadiya Chale Chale Re Dhara from Safar, Ek Ajnbee Hasina Se from Ajnabee, O Mere Sajna O Mere Balma from Baharoan Ke Sapne,Ek Maumma Hai from Premnagar, Shayad Meri Shaadi Ka Khayal from Souten. He was officially credited in song albums only in two songs - Haan Toh Main Kya from Raja Rani, Pushpaa I Hate Tears from Amar Prem and Main Toh Kuch Bhi Nahi from Daag. But if video and song sare heard from the CD's , it can be easily understood that Khanna recites dilaogues in between - in case of these songs.Onceshook1 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

Khanna attended Hill Grange High School, Mumbai, in years 1958-59.

Csbhatia (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. You need to provide a source to include this information. I also note that the article says he attended a different high school (with a source), although I suppose he could have attended more than one.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

I want to correct some edition in this biography of Rajesh Khanna. You have mentioned the birth place of Rajesh Khanna as "Amritsar, India" which is incorrect. Actual Birth place of Rajesh Khanna is "Burewala, Pakistan". Please find below link by "The Indian Express" which proves the birthplace of Late Mr. Khanna:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/for-kaka-from-pakistan/977275/ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Residents-of-Pakistan-town-condole-Khannas-death/articleshow/15101019.cms http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-59469-Rajesh-Khanna-was-born-in-Burewala http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_pakistan-s-burewala-city-mourns-rajesh-khanna-s-death_1717111

I hope above links would help you to believe that Late Mr. Rajesh Khanna was born on 29th December 1942 in Burewala, Pakistan. Also, I would like to mention here that Mr. Rajesh Khanna's real father name. Rajesh Khanna's father, Lala Hiranand Khanna, was the first headmaster of MC School, Burewala, who got retired on in March 1947. Later in 1948, Hiranand Khanna migrated along with family to Amritsar following the partition of the sub-continent. Umermalhi (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Changed birthplace only. Interestingly enough, there was a source for the Indian birthplace, but you've provided too many sources supporting the Pakistani birthplace. Plus, the other source was DNA, and you've provided a DNA source as well. Obviously, this change may be problematic. I'm curious if there's any other reliable source that reports the Indian birthplace.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Khanna was born in Amritsar only. Every Indian media says its Amritsar. Khanna's father migrated from Pakistan before Partition and settled in Gali Tiwarian in the city of Amritsar in 1940. Khanan was born in Amnritsar in 1942 and soon after his parents died. Later he was adopted by Chunnilal Khanna's family.Onceshook1 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

The editing should be made to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajesh_Khanna

Here the line, "After being critical illness, Khanna died on 18 July 2012", is grammatically incorrect and is also void of an important fact that should be mentioned. The line should be changed to, "After being critically ill, Khanna died of cancer on 18 July 2012".

Mr.bhasin (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Changed.Good call, but there's no any official announcement that he's been died coz of cancer. Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 07:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So I guess I can mark the template with ans=yes. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 08:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Last words

Going to be add last message of MR.Khanna soon. -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead Section- Clarification needed

There is a clarification tag put up in the lead section. The editor which has put up that tag should mention here why he has put up, else I am going to remove it. The citation has reference for the same text.Regards, theTigerKing  15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As indicated in the edit summary, I added the tag because there is no explanation in the article or the source what "golden jubilee hit" and "silver jubilee hit" mean. They are idiomatic expressions which need a clarification. --bonadea contributions talk 16:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Whenever use such tags, please mention why you have used them in the articles at first place.Regards, theTigerKing  17:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Golden jubilee hit means a film that was on screen for 50 weeks. Silver means 25. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A film which runs in theaters across India for more than 25 weeks but less than 50 weeks is a silver jubliee Hit and the film which runs for more than 50 weeks and above in every theater across India is a Golden Jubilee Hit.Onceshook1 (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is not where this information needs to be (though it's good to have the clarification here as well). The point of Wikipedia is that people should be able to come here and read the articles and get information there. We cannot expect an article reader to go to the talk page on the off-chance that an idiomatic term is explained there - and the explanation was not needed for my benefit or that of any other editor, but for the readers. For the record, I've asked fifteen colleagues, all of them native speakers of English, if they knew what a "golden jubilee hit" in the movie industry was, and nobody had heard the term (nor "silver jubilee hit"). I got some rather entertaining guesses as to the meaning of the terms, though. :-) So the explanation is definitely overdue.

Since I only know what the terms mean from unsourced explanations on this talk page, I'm not going to add any explanation to the article - it would feel irresponsible unless I see a source for it. The grammar of the sentence looks very odd as well - you don't "give" a hit, surely. --bonadea contributions talk 16:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Terms have been explained in talk page twice by two different people. Okay right now I have explained the terms in brackets.Now you may remove the notification of clarification needed.Onceshook1 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Khanna Died of Cancer

http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/celebrity/rajesh-khanna-was-suffering-from-cancer-for-the-past-one-year_115624.htm and http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/2012/rajesh-khanna-last-wish-097591.html It s clear from these artiles that Khanna died of cancer and that though he and his family members knew he was ill a year ago, Khanna had insisted that the news of him being ill and having cancer need not be divulged to the public till after his death. Mumtaz, his close freind and co-star makes it clear in the artcile - http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rajesh-khanna-was-very-close-to-me-mumtaz/976166/ and http://www.filmitadka.in/201207192481/news/mumtaz-and-sharmila-tagore-share-rajesh-khanna-memories.html that Khanna was suffering from cancer and had met him a month before his death. Onceshook1 (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no official announcement either from family members or any medical reports. Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mumtaz has made it clear and read the 4 artciles i have given above. It was cancer due to which he became slim from 2011-2012.Onceshook1 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Another refernce says he died of cancer. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Demand-grows-for-Rajesh-Khanna-DVDs/articleshow/15170006.cms. Its hightime that wiki artcile is corrected and its mentioned that Khanna died of Cancer.Onceshook1 (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct birthplace of Rajesh Khanna?

This news article http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=59469 claims that Khanna's actual birthplace is Burewala (Pakistan), not Amritsar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.125.119 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian media says Amritsar and pakistan media says Burewala.This has become a controversial topic,but yet hasn't clarified.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 16:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Khanna was born in Amritsar only. Every Indian media says its Amritsar. Khanna's father migrated from Pakistan before Partition and settled in Gali Tiwarian in the city of Amritsar. Khanan was born in Amnritsar in 1942 and soon after his parents died. He was adopted by Chunnilal Khanna's family.The family did have an ancestral house even in Burewala as his biological dad worked in school in Pakistan.Onceshook1 (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ok,make change in article but please do not forget to add reference.Thank You-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Khanna's biological father's name is Hira Nand Khanna and Acertain his birth place

Following information needs to be incorporated 1) Rajesh Khanna's father, Lala Hiranand Khanna was working as the headmaster of MC School, Burewala near Faisalabad in Pakistan in the 1930's till his death. 2) Khanna's ancestral house built in 1935, is still located in located in H-block on Delhi-Multan Road and is named as 'Jatin Bhawan'. 3) But Rajesh Khnana is born in Amrisar only as per Indian Media as his parents' hometown was Amritsar and only for work purposes his father had another ancestral house in Burewala Pakistan.

References - http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/07/19/truth-revealed-rajesh-khanna-was-born-in-pakistan/#.UCqOClaPWDs Onceshook1 (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

unbroken record for most solo hero films

Adequate references available online proving following 2 facts 1 Rajesh khanna did 106 solo hero films. 2) Secondly he holds record for being the actor from hindi films with most number of solo hero films. ( which is 106) 3) He was awarded filmfare special award in 1991 for his record of most number of solo hero films till 1991 in compariso. To all other male actors of hindi films and also for completing this feat within 25 years since his debut.

4) his record of doing most number of solo hero films in hindi is a standing record, which is yet to be broken. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&diff=574028870&oldid=574028356 The version which appeared a hour ago was correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.121.83 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

that version does not have reliably published sources which confirm your claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the information is already in the article - two sentences above, in idiomatic English - this would seem to be a non-issue. --bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The below link is more specific saying by 2011 he held record of most number of solo hero hind:i films and least number of multi star - 22. Here is the link http://www.theothernews.in/specialcoverage/77-news/8722-anand-marte-nahin.html Below link http://radio2fun.com/news/?p=2264 http://radio2fun.com/news/?p=2264— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.125.99 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 September, 2013 (UTC)

The current version makes for confused reading. It does not mention properly 2 things that he continues to hold record for doing most number of solo hero hindi films (106 films). and that he was given award in 1991 for not just completing 25 years but also for doing most number of solo hero movies just in span of 25 years in comparison to all Hindi actors who acted since 1913 to 1991. His tally of solo hero was just 101 in 1991. That filmfare special award was also given since he did least number of two hero films. and radio2fun article reference also says so. Then see Now references you need to find as you are removing them though its mentioned in references given.

Other references include http://www.movieplus.com/article-details/10-best-performances-of-rajesh-khanna-807/ and http://www.theothernews.in/specialcoverage/77-news/8722-anand-marte-nahin.html and radio2fun site too.

I agree with above points. Seriously too many references prove the point. http://www.theothernews.in/specialcoverage/77-news/8722-anand-marte-nahin.html says directly - Khanna was awarded a Filmfare Special Award in 1991 for having starred in 101 films as the solo lead hero and just 21 two hero films in a short span of 25 years. By 2011, he held record for actor with most number of authors backed lead hero films — 106 solo hero films and only 22 two hero films.

http://www.movieplus.com/article-details/10-best-performances-of-rajesh-khanna-807/ says - Rajesh Khanna holds the distinction of acting in the largest number of solo-hero Hindi movies.120.138.125.99 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

that you agree with yourself is not surprising. what is also not surprising is that repeatedly providing links to sources that do not meet our standards as reliably published sources is not going to advance your case. In addition, even with reliable sourcing, you would need to show that including such fanboy trivialistic language and presentation for coverage meets the standards that we have as an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The references do meet the wikipedia standards. different users in wikipedia have provided you links in this matter. more importantly - all the sources - be it magazines/newspapers/websites -have different authors and are not fan sites. Correction is required - only to convey 3 things - 1) his record of doing 106 solo hero films is a standing record - till date and is yet to be broken by any actor in Hindi films 2) this record applies only to Hindi films and not to films of other languages. 3) when he was awarded in 1991 - with special award he had done 101 solo hero films and only 21 multi-hero films. for this record he was given this award.120.138.125.44 (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

your proclamation that the sources are reliable does not make non reliable sources reliable. take them to the reliable source notice board and see the reception you get there. And just being written by a magazine does not make something "not trivial fancruft"-thats what celebrity gossip mags are completely filled with. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Using words proclamation by you would not make the facts untrue!! they are not proclamation . Go through newspaper articles, websites of news channels and online books then. Why don't you search when you deny the above real facts so easily. why are you adamant in accepting your errors? Go through the below links http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vS9FGUgL0HQC&pg=PT31&dq=rajesh+khanna+solo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bWdEUvazIceLtAafmYG4Ag&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=rajesh%20khanna%20solo&f=false - it says Filmafre special award was given in 1991 for acting in 101 solo hero films till 1991.

http://www.gffn.org/awards.html http://www.indiasite.com/Personalities/Rajesh-Khanna#sthash.Ofwx9bCw.dpuf - By 2011, he held record for maximum number of films as the solo lead hero and least number of multi star cast films in Hindi Cinema. http://www.theothernews.in/specialcoverage/77-news/8722-anand-marte-nahin.html - By 2011, he held record for actor with most number of authors backed lead hero films — 106 solo hero films and only 22 two hero films

http://www.movieplus.com/article-details/10-best-performances-of-rajesh-khanna-807/ - Rajesh Khanna holds the distinction of acting in the largest number of solo-hero Hindi movies http://www.mensxp.com/entertainment/bollywood/8831-10-actors-who-changed-indian-filmmaking-forever.html - He also holds the record for the maximum number of films as the solo lead hero and least number of multi-star cast films.

Only small modification needed to those 2 sentences. 183.87.84.86 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

where is the reply to above references from books and newspapers

People easily remove sentences from the article and do not reply when errors are pointed out showing they are committing blunders. Reply to above detailed comment with references - which show solo hero film record continues to be held by rajesh khanna till date. http://newindianexpress.com/entertainment/hindi/A-phenomenon-called-Rajesh-Khanna/2013/07/18/article1688431.ece says why he was called the phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.60.50 (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Have modified.1.187.33.131 (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

please stop spamming. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. we can, and should, determine that we want to write an encyclopedia article and not a collection of triviods. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It is also important not to clutter the introduction with repetitions of the same information (that is, the "unbroken record of consecutive solo hero films", which is already mentioned there). The lede is very information-heavy as it is, not surprisingly given the breadth and sheer amount of Khanna's work, but unfortunately one single person is determined to include as many vaguely related facts as possible, which means that the central facts are hidden in a flood of trivia. If everything is to be repeated twice in different words, we end up with a completely unreadable text. As for the fact that a newspaper headline writer and a Guardian columnist used the term "phenomemon", mentioning every noun and adjective that has been used to describe a person is completely inappropriate, regardless of whether the person is Josef Stalin, Justin Bieber or Rajesh Khanna. Khanna has been officially and publicly awarded some titles, which should be included in the article - and they are.

The existing sources really need to be cleaned up as well... --bonadea contributions talk 10:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems bonadea and Redpenofdoom - both of you have got confused. There are 3 separate records - 1) 15 consecutive solo hits (which is rightly mentioned) 2) 101 solo hero films till 1991 and 22 two hero films till 1991 -for which he was awarded the filmfare special award.(again wiki does mention it but only partly. Some one removed the information that he did least number of multi hero films till 1991) 3) the solo hero films he did till the time of his death is the maximum by any actor in Hindi films and the 22 mulkti star films he did is the least by any actor from Hindi films. (only in Hindi films as there are actors in Tamil and Malayalam films who may or may not have done more than 106 solo hero films)

Right now the only mistake which seems to be pointed out again and again - is about this 3rd record and the second part of 2nd record - present article does not mention that Khanna continues to hold record (even after his death) - the record for doing maximum solo lead hero films than any male actor from Hindi films in 100 years of Indian cinema from 1913-2013 and also that he did least number of multi hero films.(till date) and at the time of his death he had done 106 solo hero films Bowsarrown (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont think I am "confused" about anything. I know "trivialitis" in writing when I see it. A listing of records that he holds or held might be appropriate in a section on awards and accomplishments, but not cluttering up the LEAD.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason I say you are confused is simple - these records are not some fun stuff or folktales or trivia. all 3 are 3 different records. award sections are different and introduction para is different. Just see articles on yash chopra or ranbir kapoor or rajnikanth and others where we can see that - in these articles information does get repeated and are filled with many trivia but here in the rajesh khanna artcile, only certain records (these 3) are mentioned to justify the titles he is bestowed with and the popularity he enjoyed. Any how now article looks proper.

Still there is one missing information like he has done least number of multi hero films which is 23.( from 1966 to his death in 2012) - i think this should get added with the line saying he not only holds record for being only Hindi actor with most solo hero movies but also has done least number of two hero films.Bowsarrown (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

no, that is fluff. "titles" from promotional fandom are merely "titles" and perfectly fine for fansites and celebrity gossip mags, but wikipedia is not a fan site or celebrity gossip mag we cover according to encyclopedic standards, tone and perspective.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. already explained the reason how its not trivia as far as rajesh khanna article is concerned. I would like to add - these articles are neither promotional. he has already died and no promotion is needed and his body of work is too large. i do agree there are many wikipedia on many actors where the lines are actually written to promote the actor and create an aura about him. these are done for actors who are currently working - like i said yesterday just see madhuri dixit or ranbir kapoor or anil kapoor or rajnikant or amitabh bachchan article. When you read them you can see this is fluff and meant for celebrity magazines.I feel these Wikipedia articles are written and edited by their PRO and those articles need a rework by people like you or any administrator.Bowsarrown (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• you can keep claiming that it is not triviods, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed triviods. and the fact that other articles may be worse, is not an excuse to extend the bad editing further to this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The relevant policies and guidelines here include No original research (specifically WP:SYNTH), WP:INDISCRIMINATE ("...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."), and Neutral point of view. It is of course not true that it matters whether the subject of an article is dead or alive (or made-up, or a thing rather than a product) - promotion and fan-type writing is always inappropriate, and trivial details are not encyclopedic. This article is more targetted than many others, which means that it is more heavily patrolled, which means that it is in better shape than some other articles.... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still contain inappropriate details and unreliable sources.

Please also note that creating new accounts when old accounts are blocked is not allowed. --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

15 consecutive solo hits period -1969-71

Every source says the same thing that he had 15 successive solo hits from 1969-1971. So there is no issue. 1) http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/rajesh-khanna-the-superstar-who-could-not-handle-success-381803.html

2) http://www.rediff.com/movies/slide-show/slide-show-1-10-facts-about-rajesh-khanna/20120718.htm#1

3) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-19/news-interviews/32731341_1_rajesh-khanna-consecutive-solo-superhits-record-in-indian-film120.138.125.137 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the new references to the article. Of course not every source says the same thing, or the question would not have arisen, but the new sources appear to be more reliable than a couple of the ones that were removed. --bonadea contributions talk 07:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Article semiprotection

I've semiprotected the article owing to IP socking from one of the regulars here. If this increases on the talk page this will also have to be semiprotected. Editors in good standing are of course free to revert my revert of the sock. —SpacemanSpiff 11:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SpSp. It's sad that it's necessary, but I'm rather relieved to see that this measure was taken. Seeing this article pop up in my watchlist always makes my heart sink a little...

As for the IP sock's most recent edit, I thought it was probably a change for the better. I'd like to have e.g. Red Pen or another good judge of reliable sources weigh in, though. --bonadea contributions talk 12:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to explain my connecting this to the sockmaster earlier. The ToI article is an excerpt from a reverse copy of an earlier version of our article. This has been a problem in the past too. While I did not have time to check for the exact revision from which this was a copy, you can see this revision to do a word-for-word match of sentences in the ToI and Sakaal Times articles. BEANS applies, so you or any other editor involved in this clean up can contact me for more info offline. —SpacemanSpiff 13:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ouch. :-( I wish there were good, solid, reliable sources for this, especially since the existing sources are not that reliable, and give different years to boot. It's like the 1991 Filmfare award, where the actual motivation may or may not have included a mention of the number of films he had starred in. No reliable sources emerging for that one either, and it's more than possible that the information in the newspaper blog columns was taken from Wikipedia.

By the way, I've cleaned up List of awards and nominations received by Rajesh Khanna as well, because that article had been hit hard by Shrik88music socks. --bonadea contributions talk 17:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Good that article is semi protected. But sadly spacemantiff and bonadea insert a better source as truth is 15 consecutive solo hits came from 1969 to 1971. That ip address may have not provided nice source but correction was rightly made. 15 Consecutive solo hits were only from aradhana released in 1969 to haathi mere saathi released in 1971.Meeshaiomeeshai (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

please stop creating WP:SOCK accounts.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1969-1971 or 1972

The fact is Rajesh Khanna's Phenomenal Period was in between 1969 to 1972, though he remained superstar till 1974.Also He had never given 15 consecutive hits as stated, I have done keen research on Rajesh Khanna from National Film Archieve of India, Pune, Where I found Rajesh Khanna gave 15 Superhit films till 1972.So please give correct information to people.(talk)

You have given totally wrong information on Rajesh Khanna page...Rajesh Khanna had a phenomenal period from 1969 to 1972 instead of 1971...Apna desh was his 15th super hit film. Rajesh never gave 15 consecutive hits..try to understand or please do your self research.I have done an authentic research on Rajesh Khanna.Rajesh Khanna was a Superstar from 1969 to 1974 Period in which his phenomenal period was 1969 to 1972. Please do not shortened it to 1971. He had a major 3 hits in 1972 and they were Dushman, Amar Prem And Apna Desh. in 1971 He had 2 flops which were Mehboob ki Mehendi and Chhoti Bahu then how could he delivered 15 consecutive hits??? Infact Mehboob ki Mehendi was released just before the Film Anand. Lots of information I have found out from National Film Archive of India which is in Pune. Please do search it in proper way and give information to the world. Thank you.(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't use our own research. Four sources which, in the section above this, have been judged sufficiently reliable, give the time span 1969-1971. If there are reliable sources that contradict these sources, that could conceivably be added without removing what is currently in the article; a discussion about the contradictory claims might be relevant, but we must be careful not to place undue weight on minor details. It is not exactly a crucial fact, and edit warring over it seems rather ridiculous. :-) By the way, does anybody know what the label "hit" refers to here? It's not really a word we should be using (much less "super-hit" - that's the kind of word I regularly search for in Wikipedia articles and edit out because it goes against WP:NPOV) but I suspect it might have a specific meaning in terms of box office sales, and in any case, the sources call them "hits". --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The achievements section - http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-07-19/news/32747291_1_rajesh-khanna-ads-emami - answers all queries of atul. 1) chronologically 15 consecutive solo hero films released between 1969-71 were box office hits. Infact reality is he had 17 consecutive hits from 1969-1971, but 2 of them were multi hero films - Maryada and Andaz, hene its said he gave 15 consecutive solo hero hits. Then his next a special appearance in Badnaam Farishte in 1971 and solo release Maalik (1972) flopped, hence the record stopped. But again he had 11 consecutive solo hero hits from 1972-73 - in 1972 - Amar Prem, Shehezada, Joroo Ka Ghulam,Mere Jeevan Saathi,Dil Daulat Duniya, Bawarchi, and Apna Desh, Anuraag.In 1973, again he continued to have hits - Daag, Banagru Babu(spl app), Raja Rani, Namak Haraam.But his next release in 1974 - Humshakal flopped and again he had 5 consecutive hits in 1974 - Prem Nagar, Aap Ki Kasam, Ajanabee, Avishkaar and Roti and then one more in 1975 - Prem Kahani and then his next release Akraman became a flop.

2) The achievement section also point out why Filmfare special award was given to him in 1991 - it was for starring in most solo hero films in Hindi Cinema - 101 films withing 25 years.

3)The achievement section points out - the number of silver , golden jubilee hits he had. Ayirathil (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

2 January 2020

I just want to say that this phrase is in no sense promotional or puffery andif we do not use it how will it convey to the viewers that the record is still not broken. 2ndly Have u ever seen articles of other actors like Amitabh Bachchan? It is almost impossible to find out simple and encyclopedic information as it mostly contains over exaggerated phrases trying to prove him a god which is totally wrong but the phrase we are discussing about is just a simple phrase which is trying to give the sentence a complete meaning while making it informative and conceptualising that this record is not broken. 3rdly It is a record as it is given in numerous articles on the web and also mentioned in the 3 citations. 4thly this phrase was there in the article long before I ever made my first edit. You can ask @fylindfotberserk And this particular phrase only helped me know and made me aware that oh! this record is still no broken At last please keep this phrase as it helps in conceptualising and is in no way promotional as compared to any other article on wikipedia. Thankyou PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Isnt it necessary for us to give complete knowlege about anything we write so that people dont mis interpret it. Therefore if we are telling about his 15 consecutive hits, we should give a complete info that this is not broken by anyone till now with regards to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

2ndly how to reply below the post? PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@PrinceAnand2003: You can reply below a post by prepending multiple : (colon)s before your post. Each colon will add an indent to your reply. You should also reply in the same section. Scroll down to the section where you want to post a reply, click on the edit button, position your cursor in the line immediately below post you are replying to, add the requisite number of colons (if the post you're replying to has no colons in front, your post should start with one colon; it the post you're replying to has n colons in front, your post should start with n+1 colons). Type your response and sign it (don't include line breaks), give an edit summary, and click the "Publish changes" button (or "Show preview" to see what your text will look like).--regentspark (comment) 17:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

December 2019

@PrinceAnand2003: Texts like "record still unbroken" is best be avoided in an Encyclopedia article even if sourced, since it ventures into WP:PEACOCK category. Besides you are supposed to discuss after getting reverted the first time as per WP:BRD. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand this completely but i didn't use the word ‘still’ and if it is not acceptable then pls tell me a write sentence. PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I was telling that the whole sentence is unnecessary since it falls under puffery. The mere mention that Khanna's films were consecutive hits is enough and the reader will get an idea that it was a great achievement. Writing this explicitly is not encyclopedic. Wait for others to provide their inputs too. Bonadea, would you weigh in on this? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@PrinceAnand2003: please revert your latest restoration of the "unbroken record" text to the introduction of the article. At this point you are edit warring – when your edits are contested by multiple other editors (or even by one other editor) who cite Wikipedia policy, you must discuss the edits, not simply restore them. Fylindfotberserk asked you to read and comply with WP:BRD, and I'm asking the same thing of you. (And "discuss" means waiting more than just an hour for other people to weigh in!) You have admitted that you are a fan of Rajesh Khanna; there is nothing wrong with that, of course, but it means that you are likely to find it more difficult to see why this text is, in fact, puffery. It is not because of the words you choose, but because it is information that has no encyclopedic value – it does not tell the impartial reader any information about Rajesh Khanna. That he had a lead role in 15 films that were very successful is encyclopedic information, but that it is some kind of "record" that has not been broken (at some unspecified time) is information that, if it is verifiable, relates to the Hindi film industry, not to Rajesh Khanna. It doesn't matter that there is a source that claims this – especially when it comes to important movie stars with a huge fan base, we need to be extremely careful not to add hyperbole and promotion, citing the opinion of journalists as if it were objective truth. Everything that is verifiable is not encyclopedic. --bonadea contributions talk 19:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Another thing: why do you use single quotes around the word "unbroken" in your edit? Quotation marks, single or double, are not appropriate there per WP:MOS, but apart from that I am curious about what their function is. --bonadea contributions talk 19:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @bonadea for explaining such important things to me. I am still learning and would appreciate if people like you and @Fylindfotberserk will keep me correcting and explaining the reasons so well.

Again,pardon me for disturbing you two expert editors. PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@PrinceAnand2003: You still insist on keeping the phrase "still unbroken", to which we've objected. That contravenes MOS:REALTIME alongwith WP:PUFFERY. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the phrase

@Fylindfotberserk and not used the word ‘still’ anymore as per MOS:REALTIME PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@PrinceAnand20003: Please put your replies below the post you reply to, in the same section. I will add a separate response to your post, in a minute. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You added the text "a record ‘unbroken’" which two different people have explained is inappropriate for several reasons. You edit warred (breaking the WP:3RR rule) to restore it even though there was an ongoing discussion. You acknowledged that you had seen the explanations, but you appear to ignore them – for one thing, you were requested to self-revert while the discussion is going on. Could you engage with the discussion and the questions that were asked, please? --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It is Important to tell the viewers that his record is still not broken so that the viewers do not misconceptualise this and i am not using the word still as per MOS:REALTIME And talking about puffery and promotional phrase, this in no sense is promotional as compared to other actors articles such as amitabh bachchan etc: Before correcting this phrase which in no way is promotional but a authentic valid fact, correct those articles so that editors like you dont look biased PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for using the talk page. The section above is the one where there is an ongoing discussion about this. Let's not fracture it further. --bonadea contributions talk 11:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

When two people have objected to the inclusion of the phrase, you should not re-add that in between talks. You should instead wait for more people to come here to discuss this issue. In the case of an RfC, a two on one situation will be in favour of not keeping it. Pingign Cyphoidbomb, Krimuk2.0 for inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A few thoughts to help guide the discussion:

• "It is Important to tell the viewers that his record is still not broken" How do we know it is still not broken? The article cited was written in 2012.
• "this phrase which in no way is promotional but a authentic valid fact," No, it's an opinion, since "hit" is subjective, and it attempts to inflate the importance of the subject, which is what puffery is. Now, if someone was considered by many critics and historians to have been a major hit-maker in Indian cinema, there might be a reasonable way to present the opinion of that success, but (see next bullet)
• The source says that Khanna "is the only Indian actor to have delivered 15 consecutive hits as a solo hero between 1969 and 1971". I just want to point out that this is ambiguous language, because it could either be interpreted that he was the only Indian actor to have delivered 15 consecutive hits between 1969 and 2012 when the source was written, or it could be interpreted that he was the only actor to have delivered 15 hits between 1969 and 1971, meaning that another actor could have done the same thing between 1972 and 1974 or 2008 and 2009.
• Before correcting this phrase which in no way is promotional but a authentic valid fact, correct those articles No, that's not how life works. If the police arrest me for theft, I don't get demand that they first arrest all the other thieves. That argument is logically fallacious; editors address problems one by one.

PrinceAnand2003, please don't continue the edit-warring. I know it can be frustrating, but this is a community editing project, and if we edit here, we have to get used to going with the community's preference over our own preference. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I completely agree to you and your points but as you say that the record could have been broken in latter years. No it isntbroken even in latter years and the proof is 4th citation. And if u want i can add more valid and recent sources to prove my point. PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

the reply above was moved here from a different section. PrinceAnand2003, please reply below the post you are replying to, not at the top. --bonadea contributions talk 07:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not encyclopedic information about Khanna. If it could be reliably sourced – which is doubtful since it is a subjective claim by individual journalists who write in a promotional tone – it might, perhaps, belong in an article about Hindi cinema in general. But it is not really about Khanna, it is about what type of movie has been produced, how movies are marketed, and things like that. --bonadea contributions talk 07:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

PrinceAnand2003, You seem to overlook what Cyphoidbomb has said in detail Facepalm . What's the purpose of a discussion if you can't understand what experienced users say about ambiguity and un-encyclopedic content in a biography article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There are at least three ways to describe a "hit":

1. A film made lots of money.
2. A film was popular with critics.
3. A film was popular with its audience.

A film that's popular with critics doesn't necessarily mean that audiences will like it or that it will make money. (Citizen Kane) A film could make lots of money, but ultimately not be very good. (Avatar?) A film could be very popular with audiences, but may not have made lots of money. (Rocky Horror Picture Show) How you define "hit" is entirely subjective. And even if we were talking about money, what's the threshold for deciding that an Indian film is a hit? Does it have to make back its budget? Make twice its budget? Make three times its budget? Indian media is so enamored with these odd labels, "all-time blockbuster status", "superhit", "disaster", "failure"--none of them mean anything objectively. If the trades said "Khanna was the only Indian actor to have 15 films that made double their gross, that's an objective observation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of films

There is a bit of a sourcing problem when it comes to the number of films Khanna appeared in. Different sources seem to say different things; some of them tie themselves into knots detailing "solo hero" and "lead protagonist" films separately (this is pretty confusing, for instance): this source says that he "star[red] in over 180 films" while this says that he appeared in 163 feature films and 17 short films (so why does our article say 168 feature films and 12 short films?). Appear in ≠ star in, to begin with, so which source should be used here? A lot of this mess dates back to the serial sockmaster Shrik88music who had a thing about inserting original research, but there's always been an issue in articles about major movie stars that fans are eager to include every single detail they find in any source, without any thought of which sources may be more or less reliable, and without realising that everything does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The question about how many films Khanna appeared/starred in is also an issue in Rajesh Khanna filmography. Pinging @Cyphoidbomb: who is wise in the ways of Hindi cinema sources. --bonadea contributions talk 11:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Starring is obviously not appearing in, but this kind of wording can be expected in Indian news film articles even if a 'leading star' makes a guest appearance. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, but I think the source that talked about how many appearances he had must have included the starring roles in the appeared-in films – it is undeniably true that he did star in a large number of films, but it's probably best if Wikipedia doesn't try to make that distinction... The main question for me is which sources are most reliable, and then we can go from there. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: My interpretations:

• The India Today source writes - He appeared in 163 feature films of which 128 as the lead protagonist including 106 as the solo lead hero films and 22 two hero projects and did 17 short films. - I believe solo lead hero and hero projects would both be counted as starring roles. IMO in a solo hero film, Khanna would be the sole "star" and other actors would be in supporting roles. The hero projects films on the other hand might be having other actors/actresses in starring roles beside Mr. Khanna. So we have 128 starring role (lead protagonist) films in which Khanna was a star, leaving 35 non-starring feature films and 17 short stories which probably is differently categorized.
• This source is confusing, but I think they just copied it from the India Today source (same date of publication) or from a similar source, but reworded their content to avoid copyright, making the article a mess.
• Hindustan Times source is reliable but they seem to put an approximate number.

I believe you can use the India Today numbers and Hindustan Times number with attribution. But "168 feature films and 12 short films" seems unsourced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)