Talk:Hrithik Roshan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture changed

Changed picture, because the old one was very small. --Plumcouch 02:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon picture

Changed to new picture, because on the magazine cover, half his head was missing and there was half of an article on the bottom. --Plumcouch 17:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced

Some of the statements in here could really use a source. Especially "Hrithik is generally regarded as a down-to-earth, hard-working actor, neither an egomaniac nor a playboy." Who regards him this way? DejahThoris 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements have been removed. xCentaur | ☎ 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Second thumb

According to the article, and the source, the extra thumb is on his right hand. I can't see it in the Dhoom 2 screenshot - is it the way he's holding his hand or did they airbrush it out? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the picture has been mirrored. Here, his second thumb is clearly visible: [1] --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody add some copyrighted picture of Hrithik Roshan?? --Lravikumar 14:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Rakesh Kumar (Mandalay Myanmar )

dhoom 2 picture

24.12.167.204 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)what happened to the green dhoom 2 pic u see on google?

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&aq=hrithik%20roshan%20dhoom&ie=UTF-8&rls=HPIA,HPIA:2006-41,HPIA:en&q=hrithik+roshan+dhoom&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Hrithik's Height

I'm 5'10" exact and met Hrithik Roshan in person. He was not taller than me, and he does use lifts like all celebrities. Sometimes, I do look like my 5'11" or 6' friends, and it's all cause of my posture and physique. End of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minist3r (talk • contribs) 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Ridiculous. Minist3r's height and his claim 'all celebrities' cannot be verified. Also, 'sometimes' is use of weasel words. Please refrain from posting rubbish to talk pages.

Thanks xCentaur | ☎ 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.103.51 (talk • contribs)

Advertising

Should'nt this article include the the fact that he has done commercials and endorses brands etc., atleast its more significant than the 'controversy' (i haven't even heard of that). i guess someone needs to expand the cultural impact of Hritik Roshan when KNPH exploded to put it into context. like youngsters look upto him, fashion icon etc.
i remember one such instance when he played a charity cricket match and got more applause than Sachin or any other cricketer. Now that is big.

Problem is noting the brands Roshan works for is idirect advertisment, which is a stricted no-no at WP. Also, the so called "Hrithimania" is something that was barely covered by major newspapers (which serve as a reliable source), but more so by gossip magazines (which are an unreliable source). Furthermore, a note on the Hrithikmania has to be written in a neutral way, or it'll waver towards fangush. And a celebrity cricket match is a promotional event, like visiting hospitals and orphanages - not sure that's notable. And who got more applause at what event is a) POV and b) fangush. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

almost every paper in India has 'tabloid-al' tendencies, so i agree we cant use tht. found a good example of how it can be worded without brands Gaurdian UK

Early career?

I just updated the references of the page, and was surprised to find we don't have much content related to his film career prior to 2000. His 1986 release Bhagwan Dada (film), redirects to an individual by the same name. His other two movies as a child don't even exist on WP. Does anyone have any content related to these three movies? Also, are there any editors who'd be willing to help out in researching this stuff? xCentaur | ☎ 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards and Honours section

I propose a re-work of the Awards and Honours sections, which are currently seperated right now.

• Honours has only two items, neither of which are officially called honours.

The Rajiv Gandhi award is officially referred to as "award" on all its reporting pages. For example:[2]

The IFFI award being talked about was presented to Rakesh Roshan, not Hrithik. Its clearly written on the page that Hrithik was only presented a momento.[3]

• Popular Awards and Other Awards is subjective. Unless we have clear sources that one award is more popular than the other, then this distinction should not exist.

(Side note: Trying to decide which award is more popular is a strange task. Informally, prestige might rank the Oscars as the most coveted, but that doesn't in any way reduce the popularity of the Golden Globes or the Film Critics Awards.)

• His debut film "Kaho Na Pyaar Hai" received 102 awards. A seperate sub-section, or sub-page, might be better to list all of them, to reduce clutter on this page, rather than have them here.

I'd like to hear all editors' views on this, and if you have any ideas or comments, please add them here. If there's no objection in 48 hours, then I'll go ahead with the re-work. Happy editing!

xCentaur | ☎ 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of son?

Is his son's name Rehaan or Hrehaan? I know it doesn't make one hell of a difference when you say the name, but I'd like to add the correct name to his article. Does anyone have any references supporting either name conclusively? xCentaur | ☎ 05:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it spelled both ways, but the biggest sites use Hrehaan. IMDB uses Hrehaan. Similar problems with the spelling of his wife's name -- most interviews and websites use Sussanne, but I've also seen it "corrected" to Suzanne. The problem might be with the transliteration from Devanagari. Zora 07:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah... Alright, we'll stick with Hrehaan and Suzanne then... Cheers! xCentaur | ☎ 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NO, Sussanne is right, it's found 90% of the time. People use "Suzanne" because that's the most common English spelling and they're sure that Sussanne is wrong. My guess is that when Sussanne went to the US to study, she had to choose a transliteration for her name and she chose the one that would appeal to a teenage girl. "Cute" and distinctive.

I think the problem is that there are no hard and fast rules for transliteration, so people get to choose the English form of their names. Sometimes they change their minds (the whole Rani Mukherjee/Mukerji business). Zora 20:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, yes I know what you mean... ok, sussane it is then... xCentaur | ☎ 08:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Filmography?

In his list of films at the end of the article, nominations for Filmfare Awards are mentioned. While these are notable, no doubt, I'd like to question whether they add any value to the page. Only noting Filmfare Awards nominations next to his list of films while ignoring the rest seems illogical. They should either be removed entirely, or added in as a seperate paragraph in the article. Either way, those nominations shouldn't be in his filmography. All editors watching this page - any views on this? If there are no comments in 48 hours, I'll rework that section as suggested above. Thanks xCentaur | ☎ 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, you're absolutely right -- I haven't been paying attention. Too much to do, distracted. If we're going to have nominations (some editors don't want them, some do) then they should go in a separate section. Say, a main section entitled Awards and honors, and then subsections for Awards and Nominations. Best not to mix them. Good thought. Zora 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed on the INCINE project page a while back: Cut Off Those Awards!. I still fail to see how nominations are notable - are they? Why? Isn't it better to list those that are won? Should we seek a consensus, would there be any point? Ekantik ^talk 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see reasons to go both ways. On the one hand, including nominations bloats all the awards categories. On the other hand, a great many people seem to believe that even being nominated is an honor. I see it in media coverage of films and actors -- nominated but didn't win is still seen as a recommendation. I will go with the majority on this one, if a discussion involving more than Zora and Ekantik can be mustered. Zora 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we have to choose between removing them entirely, or keeping them in a seperate sub-section. Either way, its unanimous that its gotta go from the filmography. I've got board exams on right now so it might take a while,but I will remove it asap... unless someone else gets to it first ;) xCentaur | ☎ 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be a good idea to include nominations if the person hasn't actually won any awards? I agree with Zora's point about bloating; the articles of those who have won and been nominated will definitely bloat. But then again this brings up question sof notability: is it fair to buff up an article because the actor hasn't won any awards? Ekantik ^talk 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Shah_Rukh_Khan#Awards_and_nominations. I believe thats an acceptable way of going about it. Hrithik has been nominated for many awards, and has won many too, so this could be made into an Awards and Nominations section instead of just awards. xCentaur | ☎ 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that having an entire section devoted to Filmfare Awards seems biased towards those awards (such as on SRK's page). All the awards and nominations would have to have their own sections... just my opinion... any views on this? xCentaur | ☎ 07:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been working on the SRK article for some months and I still don't agree with the way it is written. :) I still have a lot to do but I tend to work on one page at a time (I'm on Shilpa Shetty right now, for obvious reasons!). One of the things we have to keep in mind that a lot of Indian actor articles are embarrassingly poor and a serious amount of work needs to be done by way if improvement, so it is next to useless to point at a particular article and say "that's the way it should be done". One way to improve articles is by following the format at BLP/MOS or by looking at Featured Content to get an idea of how an article should look. As far as I know Satyajit Ray is the only FA article we've got and it looks like there's a massive edit war going on there now, so probably not the best example.

Anyway in relation to my last comment, I was actually thinking of Shilpa Shetty; she hasn't won any awards at all (only 3 Filmfare nominations). I would be tempted to insert those nominations into her infobx except that it was agreed at Template_talk:Infobox_actor that the field should be used for wins only. But just generally speaking I'm not sure that nominations are notable. Oscar nominations for Western actors are notable because of the prestige of the Oscars (you often hear of "Oscar-nominated" this or that) but I'm not sure the same applies to Filmfare awards or any other Indian award for that matter. But because Filmfare is regarded as an "Indian Oscar" then it may be acceptable to include Filmfare nominations, but not for any other award.

Another general observation I've made is that articles tend to be pretty high on that sort of filmography and award "trivia" information while sorely lacking some real biographical content. Its funny how some people want to include "BBC Film Cafe" awards (which is a radio show and not notable, lol) but can't take the time to find some good bio information. Take a look at Shilpa Shetty for example: This is what it looked like before I started working on it, and it's current state is uhm, about 90% my contribution with much more information to be added and more cleanup work to be done.

Just my thoughts, hope I haven't offended anybody with my yadda-yadda ranting! :) Ekantik ^talk 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not Featured Content, but I like to refer to Tom Cruise as a particular example of a well-written article. Look at it! Especially the career section, it's this type of detail that should go in the career section of Indian actors. Providing, of course, that it's notable and reliably sourced. Ekantik ^talk 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards in Infobox

I oppose adding the filmfare awards he has won into the infobox. It gives undue importance to the award, making the other awards he has won seem second-rung. If we can indeed find a decent number of his nominations and awards, of course with references, then I propose we have a seperate page for Hrithik's awards, somewhat based on this format - Beyoncé_Knowles_awards_and_nominations.

I'd also like to propose the same for the SRK page, but since he's got a hell of a lot more, re-working his page would take longer. Lets first work out an acceptable format on Hrithik, and then move on to the larger pages, like SRK and Big B.

Cheers! xCentaur | ☎ 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But not all award shows are created equal. Filmfare was the first, in India (and it was in turn imitating the Oscars), and it has been imitated by many entrepreneurs. As I understand it, they are hoping to attract stars to an award ceremony (without having to pay them to show up) and then sell tickets to the ceremony/show. Awards are a dime a dozen in Bollywood - and then there are entrepreneurs trying to do the same overseas, for the same financial reasons. I mean, I could put on a show and give awards, though I don't think that the "Lower Makiki Bollywood Awards" would ever make much money ...

Judging from the media coverage, the Filmfare awards are still seen as the most prestigious. Zora 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, not all awards are equal. Fully agree with you - thats how he ended up getting 100+ awards for KNPH. Secondly, trying to decide which is more prestigious is a largely subjective matter. If you read my post above, I've mentioned that. The Oscars are most prestigous, but an actor winning a Golden Globe will still be proud. Have a look at Brad Pitt, if you see what I'm getting at. For sheer number of nominations and awards won, SRK has a seperate section on Filmfare. But that doesn't mean his other awards should be bunched together. Same holds for this page. - xC - | ☎ 08:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that media coverage can be rigged. It all depends on how much money you pump in. Glamour brings hype. Just trying to see the situation objectively... Anyway, I got boards on, do reply, I'll catch you after a while. - xC - | ☎ 08:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I worked on getting the Filmfare Awards included in the Actor Infobox template, still agonising over whether Filmfare is the award that should be listed or some others like IIFA or National Awards, but I'm also convinced that Filmfare is the most notable one. It's just a way of filling in the fields in the Infobox just like it is for every other actor (Western included). otherwise the infobox looks pretty bare and there's not much point in an infobox at all if the same logic is used (Hrithik's birthdate is in the article too).

That's a pretty good example you've got there, about Beyonce, a whole page listing her awards. I just glanced at it and I'm not sure that some of her awards are notable but that's jut my opinion. Lemme give a more relevant example: BBC Film Cafe is a radio show that has it's own "award ceremony" (on radio) and actors/actresses are presented with awards (on radio) for whatever they have excelled at, and it's all done on radio! :) Is this a notable award? I don't think it is worthy of being listed on an actor's article-page, but it may be worthy of listing on a page like Beyonce's. Hmmm, it's all a very murky grey area if you ask me.

Speaking of which, I understand that Wikipedia is generally an ongoing project but this article sorely needs more biographical content on Hrithik before worrying too much about which awards are notable for the infobox, etc. Just my thoughts. Ekantik ^talk 05:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha, 100+ awards for KNPH. I was actually in India at that time and the whole country went crazy over that movie. Ekantik ^talk 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thats true,his infobox is pretty bare, but I'd rather leave in a bare infobox than fill it in just to utilise the space :P.
• As for Beyonce, all I can say is... exactly! Just like Hrithik, or in fact any other high-media-coverage celebrity, she has recieved awards that are prestigious and some awards that are definitely shady.
• The 100+ awards of KNPH, off the top of my head I could name about 15 different award ceremonies he could have looted, but the rest would classify as non-notable. However, in terms of sheer numbers, his awards for KNPH are notable. A penny for your thoughts - so when I manage to get all of them, where do we put that? ;)
• Saw your BBC Film Cafe part too, LOL, thats exactly what I mean... I strongly suggest having a seperate page for hrithik based on the same format (roughly). So there we can throw in his awards, nominations, da da da, and not have to worry about bringing down the grade of the main article.

This is Bollywood, awards and item numbers come a buck a dozen. I agree with you, lets not focus so much on side issues, lets get his biography and other details up to the mark. Cheers! - xC - | ☎ 11:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(PS - you're not in India anymore?)

Sounds like an idea. A good place to start would be searching for news media articles about Hrithik via Google News, that's what I do. No I live in the UK, I was in india at the time for a cousin's wedding. It was wild, Hrithik was everywhere and of course they played the title song of KNPH on every party-occasion, much to my annoyance (haha). Most people were wondering why the whole country was freaking out over one movie and one song. Good thing he's come up with some hits to stay the critics, like KMG and Krrish. Ekantik ^talk 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen the results of the latest Filmfare Awards and that Hrithik has been awarded Best Actor for Dhoom 2. I really think we need to revisit the idea of keeping a record of awardsin the infobox, as infoboxes help the article by providing a concise "boom" summary of the person. And also because, well, that is the whole point of the infobox determined by multi-editor collaboration? Comments requested of course, thanks. Ekantik ^talk 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked up a lot, and I mean a lot, of articles on actors on WP. Though it isn't uniformly followed, yes, now I do agree that we can have the Filmfare Awards in the infobox. The same could also have notable roles, and other awards or nominations he's got, which are of some importance. I'm pressed for time, or I'd offer to help, but I promise I'll start with sorting his awards and noms in a week's time. That is... if someone else doesn't get there before me... ;) Cheers! - xC - | ☎ 09:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I went ahead and added the filmfare awards. Just strictly for infobox preferences of course :) Ekantik ^talk 07:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

trivia section + nicknames

As per WP:TRIV, articles shouldn't have trivia sections. Now I know that this isn't followed uniformly, but we might as well start with it somewhere. So I'll be integrating the trivia section in the main article content in 48 hours, unless there are any objections.

Also, his nickname Duggu doesn't really need to be in the lead para. IMHO, both Duggu and Bholunath should be removed from the article, since (a)we know they're true, but we don't have refs (b)we don't have any quotes of anyone notable calling him that (c)they're unencyclopedic, most kids end up with half a dozen nicknames by the time they pass out of high school, who cares anyway? Again, I'll remove it in 48 hours unless someone objects.

Thanks xC | ☎ 11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

filmography

Does anyone have citations for Delhi 6 and/or Sashank?

Also, all editors please note that Dhoom 3 has been officially scrapped - see this.

I mentioned these because they are recurring additions to this page - any addition of these three movies should be removed.

Thanks

xC | ☎ 05:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: found a ref for delhi 6 this. Sashank still unverified. Thanks xC | ☎ 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

comment

In 2001, a rumour alleging Roshan to have made bad remarks on Nepal and its people caused outrage in the country. Several newspapers carried the report, leading to student protests, in which four people died. [11] The unrest the protests caused forced the government to cancel a flight from Kathmandu to India.[12]Later the Indian embassy and the actor himself clarified that he had made no such disparaging remarks against Nepal. [13]

In 2006, at the London press conference for his film Krrish, Roshan said that he knew it was time to leave Shanghai and Hong Kong after six weeks of stunt training and go home when his eyes started "turning into little slits like the Chinese".[14]

The comments are against chinese people this article must be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.72.220 (talk • contribs)

LOL. Sure, whatever you say, Your Highness. xC | ☎ 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong details

Delhi 6 does not star Roshan - this page

Kismat Talkies - this page shows the film hasnt even started filming yet and so is still in planning stage

As for Krrish 2 - see this

In short, Krrish 2 and Delhi 6 should be removed whenever you see them, while Kismat Talkies should only be allowed to remain in the article if there is a valid source from the producer/director/etc that the film will be shot.xC | ☎ 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with Delhi 6.

But Kismat Talkies should be kept. BTW, I remember that YOU added Don 2 to Shahrukh Khan's filmography, when it was actually in "planning" terms and was not confirmed at all. Kismat Talkies is a confirmed project. Your ref doesn't say that the film has been cancelled or whatever. Shooting will begin next year. That's all. [4]

Krrish has an entry at IMDb but I don't really know...

Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did add it, with a reference, if I remember right. If someone can provide a valid reference for some movie, I see no harm in adding it in.xC | ☎ 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro changes

I reverted the expansion of the intro. It is a single revert and I do not wish to engage in an edit war.

Reasons for reverting-

• changes not discussed - there have been a ton of problems related to large scale changes made without explanation, so this is pretty much self-explanatory
• unnecessary duplication of content - the same content is being used in the career section and I see non reason for it to be in the intro as well
• over-detailing of intro - suppose we ignore the redundancy factor, its still too much detail for the intro of an article. Such a large amount of details deserves to be included in the career section and covered properly there.

regards,xC | ☎ 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the same content is being used in the career section - Not actually. The intro exists to summarize the whole article. See WP:LEAD. It is our project now and that's what we are doing.

over-detailing of intro - Feel free to rewrite it. But not removing it.

And finally see Jolie - Way way way bigger than this. Why don't you remove it?

Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170101001354/http://archive.deccanherald.com/DeccanHerald.com/Content/Nov112007/sundayherald2007111034998.asp to http://archive.deccanherald.com/DeccanHerald.com/Content/Nov112007/sundayherald2007111034998.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Roshan a patronymic?

Isn't Roshan a patronymic, adapted from his grandfather Roshan's name? If so, shouldn't he be addressed as Hrithik throughout the article? King Prithviraj II (talk)

Hrithik Roshan

Moved from Special:PermaLink/837843409#Hrithik_Roshan. 11:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi... Remove Infidelity, nepotism from this and kangana as a reason for divorce in personal life. Screenshot attached below.

Reasons of HR Divorce ..[5][6]

Hritik wife has completely cleared that kangana was not the reaason of their divorce.[7]

Below are the articles which have been quoted for the statements related to Kangana in HR's wikipedia.

Is it possible to get these articles changed/edited/removed.

This would help expedite changes reflection process.

Though Roshan maintained that they parted amicably,[145] the media reported that the split was due to infidelity on his part, linking him with several actresses, most notably his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut.[142]

[8]

[9]

Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[147]

[10]

[11] 49.126.83.1 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

This line Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[151] in Personal information is incorrect.

The case of Cyber Stalking is still going on as confirmed by Hrithik Roshan in his official statement:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/hrithik-roshan-kangana-ranaut-battle-hrithik-issues-statement-to-share-his-side-of-the-story/story-dIt2wAPUcDdTGNwMn4bpgP.html

Also, even his Ex wife, Sussanne Khan has fully supported him and exposed the Stalker more than twice. http://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/report-this-is-how-sussanne-khan-supported-hrithik-roshan-after-kangana-ranaut-s-latest-allegations-2542959 BlackPanther16 (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Per below. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

Please remove: In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut, accusing her of cyber stalking and harassment.[149] Denying the charges, Ranaut filed a counter-charge against Roshan, claiming that his lawsuit was an attempt to cover up their affair for the benefit of his divorce proceedings.[150] Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[151]

This entire segment is factually incorrect. The case is NOT closed. And there has more than enough evidence that show that Hrithik Roshan was a victim of not only Stalking but also Unsubstantiated revenge slander by a Publicity hungry Stalker. Request you to kindly remove her name from this Personal information section as it is a legal case and not really a personal issue.

Instead, please mention the following:

Hrithik statement on his Divorce in 2013:

"This is my greatest tribute to love. Sussanne is and always will be the love of my life for the rest of my life. If her smiles are brighter without me my love for her must accomplish that. Unconditional." Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/celebrities/story/sussanne-is-will-always-be-love-of-my-life-hrithik-220792-2013-12-14

Hrithik Roshan and Sussanne Khan are planning to reconcile again. Source: http://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment/news/bollywood-news/article/hrithik-roshan-sussanne-khan-remarriage-after-divorce-ex-couple-reunite/191281 BlackPanther16 (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: This is more of a one-sidedness in your claims. As mentioned in the section below, please discuss if you think there are factual errors since all of these have valid sources cited. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

PLEASE REMOVE THIS ENTIRE SENTENCE. IT WAS A FAKE NEWS THAT WAS CREATED BY POLITICIANS IN NEPAL TO GENARATE HATE AGAINST INDIA AS HRITHIK WAS GETTING WAY TOO POPULAR THERE AND IN NONE OF THE ONLY TWO TV INTERVIEWS HE GAVE BACK THEN DID HE EVER TALK ABOUT NEPAL. AND THIS DOES NOT EVEN BELONG IN "PERSONAL INFORMATION" SECTION. REQUEST YOU TO PLEASE REMOVE THE WHOLE THING.

Later that December, he was involved in a controversy when Nepalese newspapers accused him of stating in a Star Plus interview that he hated Nepal and its people. This led to protests in the country, a ban on screening of his films, and four people's deaths after street violence.[152] Nepalese people threatened to "bury [him] alive" if he ever visited the country.[153] Star Plus, for its part, stated that Roshan "did not touch upon Nepal." The violence calmed down after Roshan wrote a two-page rejoinder in which he denied having made any claim against the country. Nepali actress Manisha Koirala helped distribute it to newspapers and a local television station.[154] BlackPanther16 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The section is well supported by sources. If you think, it should not be there, please discuss and gain a consensus. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

Citations 149, 150 & 151 are paraphrased and the verified articles suggests, actually otherwise. The case is not closed as per the records instated by the authorities of the Mumbai Police. I am citing a link for your reference that verifies the fore-mentioned information provided by me: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/hrithik-roshan-kangana-ranaut-everything-you-need-to-know-about-their-controversy/lull-before-the-storm/photostory/61005243.cms

Hoping to see the information corrected and the paraphrased citations removed. Archietherave10 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Archietherave10 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC) In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut, accusing her of cyber stalking and harassment.[149] Denying the charges, Ranaut filed a counter-charge against Roshan, claiming that his lawsuit was an attempt to cover up their affair for the benefit of his divorce proceedings.[150] Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[151]

The above mentioned statements are no correct. According to the most recent development, the case filed by Hrithik Roshan on Kangana Ranaut is still pending investigation by Mumbai Police. The sources cited currently for the same are dated Nov'16 whereas the latest development is cited below by me. THE ABOVE MENTIONED STATEMENTS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO THE FOLLOWING.

In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut, accusing her of cyber stalking and harassment. Denying the charges, Ranaut falsely claimed that his lawsuit was an attempt to cover up their affair for the benefit of his divorce proceedings. Further investigations are pending by Mumbai Police and the case is still going on. Archietherave10 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Verifying, updating facts, reliable sources about the cyber-crime case filed by Roshan against Ranaut which is pending further investigations by Mumbai Police.

CHANGE

In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut, accusing her of cyber stalking and harassment.[149] Denying the charges, Ranaut filed a counter-charge against Roshan, claiming that his lawsuit was an attempt to cover up their affair for the benefit of his divorce proceedings.[150] Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year.[151]

TO

In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against his Krrish 3 co-star Kangana Ranaut, accusing her of cyber stalking and harassment. Denying the charges, Ranaut falsely claimed that his lawsuit was an attempt to cover up their affair for the benefit of his divorce proceedings. Further investigations are pending by Mumbai Police and the case is still going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archietherave10 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing in the article you cite states that the Mumbai Police are still investigating the case, nor does the article you cite prove that Ranaut's claim about the lawsuit was falsely made. Given that the paragraph is on a contentious subject, Wikipedia editors cannot approve your claims if you cannot cite sources to back up your requested edits. Altamel (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed a few words that direct the whole paragraph to completely different direction

In the Personal Life section I have removed " for the benefit of his divorce proceedings" Because 1) The citation provided does not state anything to suggest that it was a cover up for the divorce proceedings 2) The first line states that the divorce was amicable and hence if the divorce was amicable then there is no reason for a cover up. 3) The Two statements being contradictory only one can be true or none can be true 4) However there was a divorce which is amicable till date and there is no source to suggest that there had to be a cover up. 5) Hence by simple logic the latter is untrue 6) Hence I have removed the latter.

If any issues with the edit please talk to me on my talk page (Dpshow (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC))

I have changed the statement of the case being closed to a more Descriptive and statement from Mumbai Police handling the case

The previous statement "Owing to a lack of evidence, the Mumbai Police closed the case later that year" is changes to "Mumbai Police filed a report regarding the case in November 2016 and hence forth nothing has been clearly reported about the case."

1) The Article citation states that Mumbai police Filed a 'NIL Report' and hence case will be closed 2) A 'NIL Report' is like other reports files by Police like 'Summary A', 'Summary B', 'Summary C'. These are all reports filed by Police after an FIR (First Information Report) is file to police. All there reports are submitted in court. 3) After these reports are filed the court decides whether it wants to accept the report or deny it. 4) Irrespective of these reports court proceedings carry on. 5) Hence stating that because of a 'NIL Report' a case has been closed is factually in correct and against Indian Penal Court. 6) Hence I have changed the statement to a more factual and descriptive statement.

Thank You (Dpshow (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC))