Talk:Mahira Khan/Archive 1

Archive 1

File:Mahira Khan 10.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mahira Khan 10.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mahira Khan 10.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

HER PAGE ON FACEBOK

there is a page of her on facebook which has more likes than the one you have mentioned in her website section..i think you should add that one as well.it has 99084 likes......:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.81.154 (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Urdu sources

• I am adding Urdu reliable sources, you Red Pen remain reverting, you must change your authority-based behaviour. Learn to constructive editing rather that edit warring. You are not here to decide what is reliable and what is not, go to reliable sources notice board to verify.Justice007 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

content about living people requires not only the highest quality of sources (and yes EVERYONE who is editing content about living people must carefully and conservatively review the quality and reliability of sources used) but to meet general WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.

No matter what the quality or language of the source we do NOT include "rumors" of a divorce, particularly if the subject has denied it. Basic basic application of BLP.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Subject denial has not reliable sources, so terms removed, Pakistan's miltiple newspapers state that she has asked divorce. Justice007 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So we are both learing from Drmies!.Justice007 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

see the discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rumors_of_divorce -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the game of one line editors, I have commented at notice board but the users demonstrating here as an authority, I am not going to revert illegitimate removal of the subsection due to 3RR. Later it will be removed and reached any consensus before removal of the subsection, no one is here authority, it is very clear.Justice007 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The "authority" you speak of is any editor who is enforcing Wikipedia's policy regarding living persons. It is clear from the current discussion at BLPN that consensus is not to include the material at this time as it consists solely of rumour and conjecture - unless that consensus changes, or the rumours are confirmed to be true (i.e. the divorce occurs and is sourced) then the material should be excluded. Note that you do not need to pass three reverts in 24 hours to be considered edit warring, and edit-warring to restore contentious information removed on BLP grounds is not reviewed upon favourably.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not mean only one edit, take a look at "View history", you will find there authority. If you as an administrator declare ok, I will start to apply that policy from your created articles. I will discuss further any other time on your talk page this kind of issues. Anyhow I have no any problems with no any content,that should be or not. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've read your message several times but I don't understand what your are trying to communicate to me. I think you're noting that you currently have no problems with any specific article and you will use the article talk pages for discussion in the future? (At least that's what I'm hoping you're saying). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity: Please take a look at article how it was here and after multiple authority-based edits, 1

2, 3 4 5. Authority is visible, he needs to read the policies thoroughly. You got it or still needs more clarity?.Justice007 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The edits made by TRPoD that you are highlighting all appear to be correct - that is they reflect the Wikipedia Manual of Style (including the use of surnames) and BLP policy with regard to the names of minors.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct?. Please read the WP:surname again, subject is famous with "Mahira" it is her given and as pseudonym name in films and dramas. As like Faiz Ahmad Faiz, given and pseudonym name. We did not use there, "Ahmad". What do you say about Michael Busselle's personal life section, only fifteen words???. Section should be removed or WP:Ignore all the rules for that??. Anyhow thanks for maintaining the policies the ways you describe.Justice007 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, so you were indeed trying to make a point of specifically mentioning the articles I created. The reason there are only 15 words in Michael Busselle's personal life section is that there were only 15 words that were both relevant and could be reliably sourced; that is, I actually abide by the policies I quote. You might note as well that Mr. Busselle is no longer with us. I suggest that you heed the advice of editors that are trying to help you understand the various guidelines and policies as opposed to attempting to find loopholes to continue adding useless gossip to articles. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am still trying to understand them, the editors who helping me in this regard. It is my right to ask them clarity if I feel there are double standards?. My question is that here in Career section subsections with sourced have been removed, while hundreds of articles exist as same style. I have also wikified many articles as same style, it means I have wasted my time. In two years no one objected while I received barnstars. I worked hours and hours, someone comes with personalpedia rules and delete in a second and spoil whole the layout of the articles. Sorry that I do realy not understand. You should not get angry, I am good faith editor, I listen and learn when rules are applied exact in the concept of the description. Here is night, so good night.Justice007 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not angry at all, I just feel like we're going in circles. The stylistic edits are relatively minor in nature and can be addressed on a case by case basis with the editor you are conflict with. The personal information on the other hand is a BLP policy issue. That information cannot be restored without consensus and the discussion at the BLP noticeboard shows consensus to not include it. You are an editor who has put a lot of time and effort into Wikipedia and a single disagreement here certainly does not overshadow all the good work you've done; discussion is an integral part of Wikipedia editing.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2014

you have to mention TUC The Lighter Side of Life. Jimmytest12 (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Added. -- SMS ^Talk 16:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014

Mahira Khan's birth date has been incorrectly stated as December 21, 1982. Her birth date is December 21, 1984. Further, she only has one son, Azlan Askari, who is 4 years old. This is her manager and brother. Please correct the date. I can provide her passport picture but I'm not sure how to insert it her. Thank you. Hkhan22 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You will need to provide a reliably published source because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

but the current claims are unsourced and so have also been removed pending verification. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

hello!i would like to edit this page as it has some mistaken info regarding mahira khan.she dont have two kids theres azlaan askari,the child she has and no daughter forsure shes only 28 born on 21dec 1985.... i would like to add info about her height,features,eyes n so many other things n can make this article better as i am her huge fan .... please allow me to edit please ...thanks regards ameliya shah

Ameliya shah (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

u asked for some reliable source well here u go its her live chat with fans n she have mentioned her age as well as mentioned her only kid azlaan ..... http://reviewit.pk/mahira-khan-live-chat-with-her-fans/

we asked for a reliably published source. that link is not one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How to wikify

• Please TheRedPenOfDoom do not gaming the system, I am not going to ignore your continually disruptive edits, if you have concerns, discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus rather reverting good faith edits as you don't like it. Justice007 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You plainly do not understand the terminology you are using so please stop making false accusations at other editors. Also, please read the manual of style regarding sections and body and lead. The Lead, where is appears as a section, summarizes the content of the body. Your haphazard slapping of a section break does not create a body and a lead that summarizes the body. In this instance the content of the article is so minimal that there is no value in breaking into a formal body section and summarizing lead section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have wikified dozens of articles receiving barnstars by admins and experienced editors, anyhow I take a look at--as you suggest.Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

Mahira Khan is a natural beauty and she has come across as a very talented actor. Twist Morgan (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2015 (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. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

| spouse = {{marriage|Gulfam Ramay|20013}

39.53.103.25 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2015

| spouse = {{marriage|Gulfam Ramay|2015}

39.53.182.103 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07^Talk 04:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015

39.42.45.19 (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Dear Sir/Madam, I would like you to edit the bio as Mahira khan's age is 29 not 32. The world has the right to know about her real age so I plead you to change her age.

Your Sincerely, Farzeen Umar

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

! scope="row" style="background:#ffc;"|raees†| 117.255.233.149 (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

2015

|

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

Copypaste of entire article removed

Nidhidexter (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

Copypaste of entire article removed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhidexter (talk • contribs) 09:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2015

Rhea2111 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

mahira khan's real DOB is 21 DECEMBER 1988

Not done: as you have not cited reliable, independent, sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Please note that anything published by Khan, her marketing or PR people, or anyone connected to her, is not acceptable as it is not independent. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2015HI

83.110.225.177 (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016

I want to edit Mahira Khan page .i kindly request you to allow me

Aisha2345 (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Aisha2345, that's not how edit requests work. You should request a specific change, provide references, and someone with access to the article will make the change for you. We've had problems with disruptive users, which is why the article is currently protected. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2016

Mahira Kahns birthday is not in 1982 but 1984. She said so in multiple interviews and complained that it is wrong in Wikipedia. Please edit her birth year from 1982 to 1984. For proof check this interview from 5:40 onwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf0FsQ_fBkw&feature=youtu.be. This is an interview in which she explains that Wikipedia has her birthdate wrong. You can also use this video for extra information about her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9WOzoH0N1Y&feature=youtu.be I. Vellekoop (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: See Special:Diff/699589760. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: No response for 12 days despite a ping. I looked into the YouTube source. She does not explicitly state a birth year. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Vogue

please change ((Vogue|Vogue Beauty Awards)) to ((Vogue (magazine)|Vogue Beauty Awards)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:5559:310f:acfc:3f81 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. The wikilink has been altered as requested so that in no longer links to a disambiguation page. Thank you for your request, but please remember to sign your talk page comments using four tildes ~~~~ in future. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

MTV Most Wanted

I have made some changes in the career section. As per the sources, Mahira Khan was born in 1984 and she started her career at the age of 16 as a VJ hosting the live show Most Wanted on MTV Pakistan which was in 2006 or 2007 so from the year she was born to 2006-07 the age counts 22-23 not 16. In one of her interview with DAWN newspaper published in June 2007, about her show MTV Most Wanted Khan stated "I have been working since I was 16, and this is my sixth job" ("This is" means MTV Most Wanted) I can't find any other source where she has mentioned her age as 16 when she hosted MTV Most Wanted so I have changed the line Khan started her career at the age of 16 as a VJ to Khan started her career as a VJ in 2006. Please feel free to comment below if you have any question or suggestion. Thank you – GSS (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Good call. Her year of birth is more likely to be disputed than the year she started working for MTV. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Shimlaites:@M.Billoo2000: I recommend you stop edit warring and instead describe here on this talk page what you would like to see and why. Then discuss it nicely and refer to reliable sources as appropriate. If you continue to edit war, you will both get reported to WP:AN/3RR and/or blocked. Yaris678 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yaris678: Hi Admin! Actually, I was saying that Shimlaites was useing links 'Hindi films' and '2016 Uri terror attack', which are respectively redirect to 'Bollywood' and '2016 Uri attack'.

The user was writing sentence, "In early 2017, Khan appeared in Rahul Dholakia's Indian film Raees, which was her debut film in the Hindi Film Industry of India... decided to ban all Pakistani actors, actresses and technicians working in India due to the tensions created after 2016 Uri terror attack, till the situation gets normal."

This I think can be written as, "In early 2017, Khan starred in Rahul Dholakia's film Raees, which is (or was) her debut in Bollywood... decided to ban all Pakistani actors, actresses and technicians working in India due to the tensions created after 2016 Uri attack, till the situation gets normal."

Also, in 'Filmography section's table', the user was writing "Hindi film debut" infront of Raees, which I think should be "Bollywood debut".

And in last, the user has given me a warning message. Hope I explained my point, Thanks! M. Billoo 17:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know M.Billoo2000, what was your aversion to consensus till now, now let me clarify certain points to you.

• Bollywood is pop-culture word, not the official name of the Hindi film industry, its a nickname or a sobriquet. The official name of the industry is "HINDI FILM INDUSTRY",

• When you talk about a film on person's article, you do mention its time of release and its country of origin, especially when the actor is from a different country like in this case, where 'Raees' is an Indian film but Khan is a citizen of Pakistan. This is her first Indian film, so it has to be clearly mentioned that it is an INDIAN film.

• Intro para do not include all random developments of a person's career, the fact that she is doing an Indian Hindi film is to be mentioned in the career section.

• When you write on Wikipedia, you write in context. The incident of banning the actors are in relation to the 2016 Uri terror attack, which are mentioned as terror attacks in context of the BAN. Shimlaites (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(@Yaris678: notifying admin too) @Shimlaites: Where you've read this? Please can you show me the list of rules, and can you source your first point? Instead of writing, "Raees is her debut film in Hindi film industry of India" it is all clear in, "Raees is her debut film in Bollywood", because 'Bollywood' means 'Indian film industry' and in formal words 'Hindi cinema'. In reply of your first point, "A sobriquet is a nickname, sometimes assumed, but often given by another... it usually is a familiar name, familiar enough such that it may be used IN PLACE of a REAL NAME WITHOUT the need of EXPLANATION." (copied from Sobriquet). Also she is a star cast in film, and if 'starred' is a non-encyclopedic word, then please source. Also, admin please correct me if I am wrong, Thanks! M. Billoo 18:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Read" what nd rules regarding what exactly? Be specific. Bollywood is a nickname, the official word is HINDI FILM INDUSTRY. Do you use word like "Lollywood and Kariwood" for her Pakistani films on her page. It is a standard to add the country of origin of the film, specially when the actor is from another country. BTW, 'Bollywood' doesn't mean, the INDIAN FILM INDUSTRY, it is only a nickname for the HINDI FILM INDUSTRY. When there is a whole para of India-Pak incident, then why are you removing the word 'India' from the para, what is exactly your aversion?

• The word starred is a POV, from a fan's perspective. She is an actor, who appeared in a movie, not "starred". Wikipedia is not a editorial board or a magazine. Maintain a NPOV. Shimlaites (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shimlaites: See infobox and #top of film's article, what's written there? 'Star' or 'appear'. Lollywood and Kariwood are too old names that are not used everywhere now, but you can see Bollywood everywhere, in each newspaper and e-paper. Here, 'Pakistan film industry' is more common POV, and there 'Bollywood' is more common POV. I have not told the literal meaning of the word 'Bollywood' (@Yaris678: notifying admin too for my correction) M. Billoo 19:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do you even know what POV means or you are adding it ignorantly? Lollywood and Kariwood are also recognized nicknames as much as Pak film industry, if you are not using them I don't see the reason for using only Bollywood. Repeating again that it is a standard to add the country of origin of the film, specially when the actor is from another country, specially when there is a whole para dedicated to an India-Pak incident. What is your aversion to the word 'India', btw?

• Infobox and the content on the main body of article are different e.g. an infobox uses full name for a bio, whereas rest of the article in a bio only uses the last name. It is the standard, go through all other actor's pages, neutral and basic words are used to write in a bio, not POVs. Shimlaites (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(@Yaris678: @Cyphoidbomb:) @Shimlaites: I mean to say more common word in people's POV (Point Of View). Actually, I am asking a thing but you are replying something else! I have said that she has 'starred' in film (appeared as a lead, co-star SRK), you are saying that use last name on bio... You are not not understanding my point, I have all cleared about my aversion then why are you asking again? It is all clear that Hindi film industry; i.e. Bollywood, IS IN INDIA, then why are you fighting? M. Billoo 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Because of the inconsistent indenting in the comments above, I'm having trouble figuring out where to place this comment, so I'll add it here. The word starred is a POV, from a fan's perspective. She is an actor, who appeared in a movie, not "starred". - Shimlaites, this is not accurate. "Starring" is a specific credit given to actors in films and television shows.[1] It is a term widely-used in academic books, magazines, news sites, etc. and even appears on film posters. Now not everybody who appears in a film is a "star". This is a special credit that actors often (but not always) negotiate for, and that typically indicates the people that the director/producers think are the most important cast members in the film. If Khan didn't receive a "starring" credit in the film or on the theatrical poster (which is kind of rare in Indian film anyway...) or if reliable sources didn't consider her one of the film's "stars", then you'd have an better argument for omission. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, she is newcomer in the film anyway, not a star. If we look at most of the bio pages, they use terms like 'appear' for actors. A newcomer will certainly 'appear' in a movie, not 'star'. Shimlaites (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shimlaites: You say "exactly", but I don't think you understand. A newcomer can absolutely be considered the star of their debut film, and we would describe it that way. Precious (film) would be a prime example of that, where Gabourey Sidibe has a starring role as the title character and is widely referred to as a star of the film. Edward Norton also would be considered a star of Primal Fear (film) though it was his debut. Note also that in Edward Norton's article (which is considered a good article) we use the word "star" several times. How would you refer to someone who starred next to him in a film? As his "co-appear" or his "co-star"? Note that the film infobox has a "starring" parameter, not an "appearing" parameter. It's a normal word that is used often. As for whether or not Khan would be considered a star of Raees, Indian Express seems to consider Khan a star of Raees and Times of India considers her a star of Raees and Forbes does too, writing specifically, "Pakistani actress Mahira Khan co-stars in her Bollywood debut", which sounds like it was written in anticipation of this very discussion. I think this is a matter that would be wiser to yield on, lest it needlessly eat up more of our time. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The terms "starred" or "starring" are used from a film's perspective not actors or individuals. Now I am quoting from the article in question itself, "In 2016, she appeared in Bin Roye (TV series)", "She next appeared in the drama television series Humsafar". When there is a regular usage of the term 'appeared' till now, why not use it for her role in Raees, why "starred" ? Shimlaites (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule in English that we have to use the same words/expressions constantly. If it is awkward to keep saying she starred, she starred, she starred, then we don't have to do that. Maybe whomever added that content couldn't think of other ways to express the prominence of her roles in those series. "Khan played the lead role of Khirad in Humsafar". How would I know? Why don't you ask this editor? You're asking me to explain why someone didn't do something, and then using the absence of that information as a justification for why the alternative is wrong. That's not a logical approach to this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the rules of English are even an issue here. She is not playing the most prominent role in Raees, that would be Shah Rukh Khan, he is actually "starring" in the film. Even if we go by the article cited above, she is "co-starring". So should we write, that she "co-starred" in Raees? Shimlaites (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, please don't think I didn't notice that you conveniently ignored the other two sources that clearly refer to her as a star. I guess those examples were so difficult to ignore that you just had to ignore them. As to your response, surely you don't think there can only be one star in a film, do you? Because that would be absolutely wrong. In this trailer for Gone With the Wind four people are credited with starring roles, Clark Cable, Vivien Leigh, Leslie Howard and Olivia De Havilland. A person does not have to play the most prominent role in a film to be considered one of its stars. So far you have used at least four different arguments, none of which have any basis in fact, and none of which relate to each other in any way. "It's a fan term". No it's not. "We used 'appeared' elsewhere, so we have to use it again." No we don't. "She has to be the most prominent person in the film to be a star." No she doesn't. "Co-star implies a lesser star." Not necessarily. Anyway, if phrasing to the effect of "she co-starred with Shah Rukh Khan in Raaes" somehow gives you appropriate satisfaction that you will yield on the matter, then fine. It is an acceptable phrasing that doesn't materially change readers' perception that Khan had a starring role in the film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about what you noticed...or not. Is she a star of the film? She is not, Shah Rukh Khan is, she is making her debut in the industry. If tomorrow Shah Rukh Khan will work in an American Hollywood production, he won't be the star in that film coz he is not a celebrity in US. All the sources refer to her presence in the movie as "co-starring" at best. If you are happy with "co-starring" in the para, then it can be added, even adding "appeared" would not affect readers' perception about either her or the film. Shimlaites (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be equating a starring role to general stardom. The concepts are not related in any way. She is a star in the film so long as the producers say she is. Or so long as the sources describe her as one. As I've indicated with my examples of Gabourey Sidibe and Edward Norton above, unknown people can absolutely be considered stars of a film. And if Shah Rukh Khan got a leading role in a Hollywood movie, you'd better believe he should get a starring credit if his agent is worth his salt. Why wouldn't they give it to him? They'd probably market the hell out of him being an Indian superstar to get people curious about the movie. As for "appeared in", I disagree again, because "appeared in" is vague and gives you no sense of how prominent the role was. It could have been a cameo or a dance or the lead role for all we know. Vagueness is not our friend. "Starred in" or "co-starred with Shah Rukh Khan in" are obviously more specific. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not interested in Shah Rukh Khan's career or stardom, overrated actor and star as per me. The fact is that the term "appeared" is a widely used term on Wikipedia for mentioning the participation of actors in particular projects. Is she a star of the film? She is NOT. Have producers called her star of the film? NO. She is a newcomer in India, at best she can be called a co-star of the film along with Shahrukh Khan and Nawazuddin Siddiqui. Shimlaites (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you saying that she's not a star of the film doesn't make it a fact, and you seem to be hung up on newcomer/debut being relevant, which I don't think it is. She receives an introduction credit third in the billing block of the film's trailer. She's credited second at Red Chillies website, so things seem to lean toward her being considered one of the film's stars. Anyway, since you're probably bored of talking to me, consider chatting up some of the members of WikiProject Film and find out what they think about the describing her participation as "starring in" or "co-staring with SRK in" or "appearing in". They could use someone other than me bringing up Indian films there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Co-starred" works for me, though I would prefer "appeared". Shimlaites (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(@Cyphoidbomb:) @Shimlaites: See this. The film is Hollywood debut of Deepika Padukone, but the editors have written 'star' instead of 'appear' and no one has reverted it yet. The reason is that Deepika Padukone is one of the lead cast of the film, and that's why 'she starred' is better than 'she appeared'. Same here for Mahira Khan, as she is one of the lead in film Raees, which is her Bollywood debut. M. Billoo 19:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: Shimlaites is agreeing to compromise with the "co-starring" phrasing above." I think you should change it to that and then the two of you can move on. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Hi admin! The word co-star is already written there, "Her co-star and producer of the film, Shah Rukh Khan said that Mahira wouldn't be allowed to promote the film in India." Thanks! M. Billoo 19:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

So remove "Her co-star" from that sentence and just say "The film's producer, Shah Rukh Khan said..." instead. Then use "co-starred in" where "starred in" previously appeared. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Clean-up

Hi! There's a need of clean-up in this page, because it seems there is repetation of <ref name(s)> by recent edits 'user:Janu Gee'. M. Billoo 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous version of the article. If the editor wants to resubmit the changes more carefully, that's fine, but it was difficult to see exactly what had been changed and I don't have time to fix the errors. I've left him a note about editing more slowly. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

Saint Monica College should be changed to Santa Monica College. 108.171.135.189 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed by this 21:37, 2 March 2017 edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

According to [2] and [3], Mahira is now also ambassador of L'Oreal Paris along with Veet, which is already added. So please add this in that. Thanks! 182.182.61.19 (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. CityOfSilver 20:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Puffery

GorgeCustersSabre I've reverted your recent edits to this BLP because I believe article contain nothing puffery. As far I can see, the lead is written in neutral, and in factual tone. That.. she is one of the country's most popular and highest-paid actresses and the recipient of several awards is a fact attributed to several RS as one can: Mahira_Khan#Other_work_and_media_image. Feel free to discuss and reach consensus here. --Saqib (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

One can debate whether it’s puffery. But it’s certainly not neutral in tone. Hence I’ve reverted again. I’ll abide by whatever editor consensus occurs. I ask you to do so as well. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, first discuss and reach consensus. You need to follow WP:STATUSQUO. Now commenting on this dispute, I am aware we do not go by the examples here on WP, but I would like to highlight two GA status BLPs (Kajol and Anushka Sharma) and a FA status BLP (Kareena Kapoor) which has exactly the same passage. Then why do you have problem here? --Saqib (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My dear friend, thanks for your reply. Please show me that there’s a consensus on this issue on this page. I’ve gone back through the edit history. There’s been no consensus sought and gained. This must therefore just be a claim by you, with respect. I won’t edit again today, because I want to see what other editors think, but I reserve the right to revert at a later stage. A neutral point of view is pretty important. Merely showing a few other pages with similar statements means nothing. Wikipedia is a vast encyclopaedia with a variety of editorial practices. I edit in good faith. I believe you do too. We merely disagree on an issue and both have rights as editors. Thanks for listening, and best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

GorgeCustersSabre The passage is neutral and is well-cited. Otherwise, it would never have been found in GA and FA status BLPs. --Saqib (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, we disagree about this. I do not believe it is neutral in tone. You do. I see that. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for third opinion. Lets see what others have to say about this. --Saqib (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. That’s good. Thanks. It will be good if he or she will compare both versions (yours and mine) and then make a determination which is most neutral in tone. I’ll live with the decision. :-) George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The two sources that I'm seeing (The Indian Express, 11 December 2016 and www.dailytimes.com.pk, 1 February 2016) are puff pieces with no context that backs the claims about pay.

The bit about awards may be due mention if the other awards been reviewed for deserving mention. At a glance it's not clear. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ronz is correct that these are weak sources that can’t really support such bold claims. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: Pakistan's most respected daily DAWN says Mahira Khan, arguably one of Pakistan's most popular and most bankable stars. and describe her as very bankable superstar. BBC Urdu wrote Khan is now considered as leading actress in Pakistan. The New York Times affiliated newspaper in Pakistan The Express Tribune says Khan is one of Pakistan’s most popular and beloved actors.. Another story by the same newspaper says Considered as her nation’s most popular and highest-paid female actor, she’s also the first Pakistani female actor to join Bollywood’s 100-crore club. So what else? There're plenty more RS which says the same. --Saqib (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Saqib i also added that with proper sources but they revert back and specially one editor @The Mighty Glen: has some serious issue with Pakistani actresses as he remove all filmography and awards of Aamina Sheikh, you can check on her page too. On the other hand Mahira Khan is highest paid actress and that too will be updated on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.8.241.244 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You know you're just making the things worse here. I insist you stop your disruptive editing. --Saqib (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely this talk of how "bankable" "stars" are is non-encyclopedic and certainly not neutral in tone. Anthony Joshua is currently the highest ranked heavyweight boxer? Imagine if his bio article made similar claims. Or that of a banking executive? or a champion skateboarder? Why does it suddenly seems acceptable to use tabloid-style phrases for "stars"? I'm not pushing an agenda. As I said, I will accept an editorial consensus. In all sincerity I'm asking what I think is a reasonable question. Best wishes to everyone who is contributing here in such a collegial spirit. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: It would be of great help if you formatted references on this talk page in such a way that they are easily referenced here, and for possible inclusion in the article.

Do any of them verify the contested information in a manner different from the two refs I already identified and discussed? --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ronz I've formatted the references for clarity. All of them are reliable and respected Pakistani sources and does verify the information which I'm intending to add into BLP. These are intellectually independent content and are not puff pieces I believe. Please examine! --Saqib (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

I don't see how #2 directly verifies anything under dispute.

Refs #3 and #4 don't verify the information in a manner different from the other sources. There's no supporting context.

Ref #1 is very interesting and has some helpful context. However, that context undermines any statement about relative pay, and on the topic of her popularity they qualify it with "arguably". --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ronz While reference no 2 (BBC Urdu) is a Non-English sources but it is a reputable one and is for sure its usage is allowed on the English language Wikipedia. Since you don't know Urdu language, you can try Google translation for verification purpose. For reference no 3 and no 4, I'm failed to understand what exactly you looking for? These are not some paid press releases or some tabloid journalism. These are intellectually independent stories published in reputable Pakistani newspapers which meets the criteria as a reliable secondary sources. I can get you plenty more reliable sources which states the same. For instance, Reuters and New York Times both also describe Khan as Pakistan’s most popular and highest-paid actress. I believe information added to Wikipedia must have been published by a reliable source and editors may not delete properly sourced information they believe to be untrue. Your comments? --Saqib (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

References

What we should be looking for is context that demonstrates encyclopedic value. #1 has some basic context, though I'm not sure at this point how we'd use it.

Given ref#1, unsupported claims of relative pay are questionable enough that I don't think we should spend further time considering it without far better sources that clearly address what's identified in ref#1.

Given that the rest of the refs have no context, and some are throwing out the pay claim as well, I think we have to consider that they are likely simply repeating information given them without fact checking. Qualifying it as "one of the most popular" helps, but the basic info needed to qualify it properly seems unavailable (eg In what time period?).

Please review WP:BLP carefully. Biographical information in Wikipedia must be referenced with high-quality sources and strictly meet the verifiability, neutrality, and original research policies. Poorly sourced biographical information should be removed from articles. Such information should not be restored without consensus that the content problems have been resolved. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ronz: I hope you don't mind me taking this to DRN. --Saqib (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I respect your opinion but I'm not satisfied with it. I never thought that content published in multiple credible news outlets can be challenged as well. I guess I'm going to learn something new. --Saqib (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Saqib, I hope you are fine. Even many mainstream newspapers use throwaway lines like "Elvis is the best selling recording artist of all time", when they haven't done any comparative research or presented any empirical evidence. I see these statements about "the most bankable" "stars" falling into this category. These statements aren't fact-checked. Some newspapers or other credible sites even say that Elvis has sold more than a billion records (cf. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markbeech/2018/04/07/elvis-is-back-with-new-money-maker-as-u-s-album-certifications-total-146-5-million/#5d3fbde05f94 and https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/us/elvis-presley-fast-facts/index.html), when independent industry calculation institutions do not support sales anywhere close to a billion sales (see those listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists). Just my observation. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

Many Pakistan’s do not endorse Mahira Khan Hemz2001 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hemz2001: What are we supposed to do with this opinion, exactly? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well we could talk about how Mahira Khan has pushed boundaries in the pakistani community such as being in Indian movies and how she has created a new outlook on what a Pakistani actress should be like through style etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemz2001 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversion

@Ahraf Rasheed: I've reverted these recent edits of yours, for a variety of reasons, including that you seem focused on presenting one aspect of Khan's work, the praise and the awards. Did Khan ever receive negative criticism? Where is that balance? This is neutral encyclopedia, not a forum for promoting the subject. So if you wish to write about the subject, please be sure to bring balance to the article. Additionally, we don't care about non-notable awards. Notability of the award would first need to be established through the creation of an article about the award. When that article withstands community scrutiny, then maybe the Galaxy Lollywood Award could be included. Also, please be sure your referencing is top notch. Galaxy Lollywood is a blog. We don't typically care what blogs think. Please stick to mainstream reliable sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. If major news outlets don't care about the Galaxy Lollywood Award or other awards, we don't either. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Other work / Media image

Is this section necessary? It mostly repeats what is in other sections as an exercise of WP:PEACOCKERY. If there are no objections, I'll see if there's anything there to integrate into the rest of the article, and get rid of that bit. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Content discussion

@Patiparmeshwar and Hipal: I am encouraging one of you to start the discussion about the recent changes that Patiparmeshwar has submitted several times. I find it problematic because that user keeps restoring poorly-formatted content and it looks to me like they're reinstituting an old version of the article without explaining why they're doing that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think a block may be the only way to get Patiparmeshwar's attention. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I was hoping that you might explain your objections to the changes that the other user made so that they would have some understanding and would be able to respond. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a very few problems to start:

WP:MOSIMAGES states A biography should lead with a portrait photograph...

The expansion of the lede appears to have been done without any awareness of WP:LEDE.

Talk:Mahira_Khan#Puffery covers some of the previous puffery problems.

https://reviewit.pk/ doesn't appear reliable.

https://www.globalvillagespace.com doesn't appear reliable.

The tone and detail mimics that of public relations and other promotions, and is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Her date of birth according to Wikipedia was 1982 and various other sources also say so that she is 1982 born. Now it's suddenly changed. So please verify. 59.97.93.68 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are multiple sources cited within the article supporting a birthdate of 1984. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

Hi! Mahira Khan is not married to Ali Bin Shahid lol. Some dude by this name has added erroneous information. She is still single! 39.41.28.224 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021 (2)

Mahira Khan is not married 39.41.28.224 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• MahiraKhan.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Source speaks of her being born into an Urdu speaking family

@Hipal Kindly check the 3rd source of her ancestry. She is an Urdu-speaking Pathan/Pashtun https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/mahira-khan-husband-family-and-wedding-photos-movies-and-tv-shows-ali-askari-neeyat-humsafar-and-bol-4421415/ Uzek (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Meaning third source in first sentence speaking of her ancestry* Uzek (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

So why remove the date of birth? [4] --Hipal (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The third ref says "Mahira was born into a Muslim family in Karachi, Pakistan. The actor during an interview has said that both her parents are Urdu-speaking Pathans." --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it was already discussed on the infobox? Found the repetition of date of birth in early life odd as it's not usually mentioned in biographies (if mentioned in infobox). Uzek (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that what I edited into the article previously. "Pathan" is another word for "Pashtun" already mentioned but she doesn't speak the Pashto language of Pashtuns. Which is why she herself identifies as Urdu-speaking Uzek (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

May seem minor but in the 'Early Life' section, could "Pashtun" be replaced with the word "Pathan" instead?

Clarifies for it to be less misleading, she is after all listed as a "Pathan" in every source and not "Pashtun". The words in effective meaning are not interchangeable, "Pashtun" being Afghan or someone from a Pashtun Tribe in North-West Frontier/Northern Balochistan, "Pathan" being the Indo-Pakistani descendants of Pashtun who settled in India, like Mahira Khan's Muhajir Background. 49.185.96.222 (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Modified her background as per source Uzek (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

The date of birth is usually in the start of lede, in the infobox, and beginning of the relevant biographical section in the article body.

What about "Muslim"? --Hipal (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ehh, don't know. Pakistan isn't really a religiously diverse country for this to be relevant to a Pakistani reader, plus her name tells it all. Maybe an for an Indian reader? Uzek (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. --Hipal (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

″Add Prince Charming in filmography of Mahira Khan" Roopam456 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Razia by express tv

Mahira Khan play Razia 39.36.213.125 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Jo bachy hai sang samiat lo

Mahira Khan play Lisa's Character opposite Fawad Khan 39.36.213.125 (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)