Talk:Akshay Kumar/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

F&f's sources on Akshay Kumar's political canvassing for the Hindu right

Please do not edit this section

Newspapers or news magazines

  1. Bhattacharya, Snighendu (September 20, 2022), "Is the Hindu Nationalist 'Boycott Bollywood' Campaign Impacting the Box Office?", The Diplomat, Most interesting was the failure of Akshay Kumar's "Samrat Prithviraj," a film that should have been on the watch list of every Hindu nationalist moviegoer. It eulogized a Hindu king, who is frequently described as the last Hindu emperor, to the extent of being accused of distorting history. Kumar, the lead actor, said during publicity that the king was not given adequate space in textbooks while foreign invaders (read Muslims) had whole chapters dedicated to them – a notion that perfectly matched the Hindu nationalist campaign on rewriting India's history textbooks. Kumar himself has earned the reputation of being a poster boy of Hindu nationalism.
  2. Dore, Bhavya (31 January 2021), "The Player: Akshay Kumar's role as Hindutva's poster boy", Caravan Magazine
  3. Bhatia, Sidharth (June 2, 2022), "Akshay Kumar's Hindu Samrat Goes Where No Other Bollywood Film Has Gone Before: The blatant advertising of 'Samrat Prithviraj' shows it is aimed at only Hindus, but will this work at the box office?", The Wire
  4. Lateef, Samaan (September 30, 2022), "In India, Modi's Hindu Nationalists Declare War on Bollywood's Muslim Superstars", Haaretz
  5. Subramanian, Samanth (October 10, 2022), "When the Hindu Right came for Bollywood: The industry used to honor India's secular ideals—but, since the rise of Narendra Modi, it's been flooded with stock Hindu heroes and Muslim villains.", The New Yorker
  6. Pandey, Geeta (9 June 2022), "Samrat Prithviraj: Why did a Bollywood film on a popular Hindu king fail?", BBC News
  7. Das, Rolla (June 24, 2022), "Bollywood and its Hindutva lens: Hindi films are drumming up the good Hindu vs evil Muslim binary, mixing religion with nationalism, and peddling selective stories.", Deccan Herald
  8. Singh, Akanksha (November 20, 2020), "Bollywood, Disney and Akshay Kumar all blamed for Laxmii – the Hindi comedy horror film with an insensitive treatment of the trans community", South China Morning Post
  9. Sinha, Kanad (July 3, 2022), "Twisted plot: Communalisation of history must be resisted", The Telegraph, Kolkata
  10. Mathur, Yashika (June 25, 2022), "Rewriting History Through Cinema: A Reality?", Outlook India
  11. Pant, Pushpesh (June 12, 2022), "Heroes and villains in reel and real lives: In interviews promoting his film, he (Akshay Kumar) makes sweeping statements about the achievements of Hindu kings not being given a due place in school textbooks.", The New Indian Express
  12. Jha, Shefali (June 3, 2022), "'Did you go to school uncle?': Akshay Kumar mercilessly trolled for 'history textbooks' remark", International Business Times
  13. Khadgi, Ankit (November 20, 2021), "'Sooryavanshi' beating the Hindutva drum: Akshay Kumar, Bollywood's poster boy, is back with yet another problematic film that perpetuates the beliefs of Hindu supremacists.", The Kathmandu Post
  14. Dhillon, Amrit (September 14, 2020), "Narendra Modi's attempt to bring Bollywood to heel", The Times, London, (subscription required) To the chagrin of BJP ideologues, only a few people in the industry subscribe to its ideas, such as actors Akshay Kumar, Ajay Devgan, Anupam Kher and the lyricist Prasoon Joshi. A couple of films with a pro-nationalist tilt have been made recently, giving the party what Santosh Desai, a prominent commentator, called "some more thematic influence" over content.
  15. Ayyub, Rana (November 15, 2021), "Why an Indian film's success at the box office should worry us all", Washington Post, The nauseating scene is featured in the movie "Sooryavanshi," which is ruling the box office here in India. The film stokes the dangerous "love jihad" conspiracy, which paints Muslim men as colluding to seduce or kidnap Hindu women or girls and convert them to Islam. But other Islamophobic tropes are the center of the film, which has as its male lead one of the biggest stars in India, Akshay Kumar — a big fan of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and an actor famous for his jingoistic, hyper-nationalist films. "Sooryavanshi" is one of the most successful films in India after the covid-19 lockdowns were eased. Its success contributes to the climate of hate and discrimination that India's estimated 200 million Muslims must face everyday.Every third frame of the film is a bloodcurdling Islamophobic image. While an upper-class Hindu character played by Kumar gives lessons in patriotism, the Muslim antagonist responds with hate. He is ungrateful, with a long beard and skull cap. Each time the protagonist sermonizes the Indian Muslim to fall in line, the audience in the theater where I saw the film whistled and applauded.The film does not even pretend to mask its agenda — which is the right-wing Hindu nationalist agenda of Modi's government. It justifies the abrogation of the special status accorded to Kashmir, where thousands of youth were detained and an Internet blackout was imposed in 2019. Like the government, the film argues that the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution has wiped out terrorism from the valley.

Journals

  1. Mitra, Sreya (2021), "#ModiWithAkshay: 'Brand Modi', social media and Bollywood star power", Celebrity Studies, 12 (2): 282–298, doi:10.1080/19392397.2021.1912256
  2. Tieri, Silvia (2021), "Sikh Martiality, Islamophobia, Raj Nostalgia, a pinch of saffron: Kesari's nationalist cocktail and the power of trailers", Sikh Formations: Religion, Culture, Theory, Routledge, doi:10.1080/17448727.2021.1949916

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


I will add another section and summarize it in the lead in the near future when I'm able to make time for it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Media biography FAs and a mention of family in the lead A through Z

Amy Adams Not done – Ben Affleck Not done – Ike Altgens mentioned only because of poisoning. – Andjar Asmara Not done – James T. Aubrey Not done – Kroger Babb Not done – Vidya Balan Done – Christian Bale Not done – Eric Bana Not done – Joseph Barbera Not done – John Barrymore Not donementioned four failed marriages in the context of alcoholism; nothing about his family – Harriet Bosse Done – Rudolph Cartier Not done – Nancy Cartwright Not done – Charlie Chaplin  Not done scandalized by his involvement in a paternity suit and marriages to much younger women. – Jessica Chastain Done – Priyanka Chopra Done celebrity marriage – Bradley Cooper Done – Gary Cooper  Not done – Russell T Davies  Not done – Walt Disney Not done – D. Djajakusuma Not done – Steve Dodd Not done – Kirsten Dunst Not done – George Formby Done – George Formby Sr Not done – John Gielgud Not done – Jake Gyllenhaal Not done – Maggie Gyllenhaal Done – William Hanna Not done – Phil Hartman Done, his wife killed him – Anne Hathaway Done – Ethan Hawke Not done – Katharine Hepburn Not clear ("She was briefly married as a young woman but thereafter lived independently.") – Philip Seymour Hoffman Not done – Tom Holland Not done (but he is young) – Michael Hordern Not done – Kenneth Horne Not done – Nicholas Hoult Not done – Josh Hutcherson Not done – Oscar Isaac Not done – Hattie Jacques Done – Peter Jennings Not done – Scarlett Johansson Done – Angelina Jolie Done – Katrina Kaif Done – Dimple Kapadia Done – Kareena Kapoor Done – Sonam Kapoor Done – Shah Rukh Khan Not done – Kalki Koechlin Not done – Brie Larson Not done – Jennifer Lawrence Not done – Vivien Leigh Done – Angel Locsin Not done – Shaylee Mansfield Not done (but she is very young) – Jacobus Anthonie Meessen Not done – Marilyn Monroe Done (but highly public) – Julianne Moore Done – Rani Mukerji Done – Cillian Murphy Done – James Nesbitt Not done – Sydney Newman Not done – Deepika Padukone Done – Freida Pinto Not done – Brad Pitt Done – Kangana Ranaut Not done – Satyajit Ray Not done – Roekiah Done – Hrithik Roshan Done – Judy Ann Santos Done – Peter Sellers Done – Shefali Shah Done – Sebastian Shaw (actor) Not done – Red Skelton Not done – Aaron Sorkin Not done – Rod Steiger Done – Emma Stone Done – Terry-Thomas Not done – Jack L. Warner Not done – Emma Watson Not done – Michelle Williams (actress) Done – Kate Winslet Done – Reese Witherspoon Not done – Catherine Zeta-Jones Done – Preity Zinta Not done  (86 articles)


  • (Updated) 51 of 86, i.e. three to two, do not have a mention of the marriage and/or children in the lead, although many infoboxes do mention marriages and numbers of children. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add anything to this section; you may start another section for discussion if you'd like.

The proportion and importance of Kumar's citizenship in lead

Following recent edits by Fowler - I would like to specify what Krimuk2.0 has already mentioned above - Citizenship is part of his personal life, and not a major issue in and of itself. The claim that citizenship overshadows his personal life, which has been a subject of frequent media interest throughout his career, is baseless. There's also agreement above that it's already been given too much importance in the lead and perhaps should be cut down per WP:DUE. At this point, everything that is not his film career as an actor, should be put together in one paragraph, just like it's normally done in other actor BLPs, including FAs. Fowler, your attempts to single it out here and make it a single paragraph is obvious - please discuss it and reach consensus instead of edit warring. Shahid • Talk2me 14:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Another point - the claim that citizenship outranks personal life because because of sources is directly shown to be incorrect considering, for one, an entire section on his social activism which does not find any mention in the lead. Shahid • Talk2me 14:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Of course it is not baseless when the parliamentary affairs bureau of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation steps into the controversay:
  • Dyer, Evan (Parliamentary Affairs Bureau) (7 March 2020), Canada's politicians have stayed mostly silent about a wave of anti-Muslim violence in India, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) News, retrieved 14 September 2020 Quote: "(Former prime minister Stephen) Harper campaigned in 2011 alongside one of Modi's biggest celebrity backers, Bollywood star Akshay Kumar, who was later given a special grant of Canadian citizenship." That is not personal life. I'm happy to take this to WT:INDIA and ask the knowledgeable people there. Apparently for three years it did not occur to you that anything was the matter with this grouping.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Move the discussion down, as for additions re his political views in the lead, as I said, you'll add them only if consensus is reached. Shahid • Talk2me 14:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
But until it is added you don't get to dicker with that paragraph. Please understand that. The issue of privacy itself has been written up in the media.
  • Luthra, Rajesh (8 May 2019), "Why Akshay Kumar's national loyalty is no private matter", NewsLaundry, retrieved November 7, 2022, Mr Akshay Kumar didn't vote. He didn't vote because he chose not to. He chose to give up his Indian citizenship for a Canadian passport. A few years ago, in a video that has since gone viral, he explained that Toronto was his home, and that he'd stay there once he retires from films. After he was confronted with why he didn't cast his vote, Kumar tweeted that his vote was a private matter and not anyone else's business. It is important to note that Mr Kumar, a Canadian citizen, has earlier advised Indian women to use sanitary pads and has also made a movie telling Indians to use toilets. Had Mr Kumar possibly just danced and beat up bad guys at the end of two-hour melodramas (as some of his colleagues limit the agenda to), social media may not have sounded as affected as they did over his citizenship. Had he not interviewed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on national television during the elections on national and notional issues, a doting audience may not have questioned his politics. Lastly, if Mr Kumar hadn't publicly endorsed Mr Modi's advice to exercise the right to franchise, his fans may not have asked him why he didn't cast his vote.Family matters are best kept within the family. It is the parent who takes it upon himself to spoil or shape the child. Likewise, some matters of the nation are best addressed by the nationals themselves. In India, cinema and cricket run deep and have as much impact. So when it was ascertained that Mr Kumar had forsaken his nationality for the seductive wilderness of Canada, it hurt. In light of that, his right to participate and, further, to preach was debated, questioned and criticised. Your national loyalty became everyone's business, Mr Kumar.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
dicker just means tweak or haggle. It is not tendentious language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The proper venue for a consensus will be WT:INDIA where I am happy to have an RfC once I have added a section about the actor's Indian politics to which I will move over the citizenship subsection. It is obvious that when a topic has been written up to such an extent in media in both Canada and India, it is no longer a personal matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
And foreign media:
  • Asia Times Staff (May 6, 2019), "Actor's Canadian citizenship leaves India's ruling BJP red faced: Hindi film's poster boy for nationalism admits to being a Canadian citizen after not voting", Asia Times, His admission that he holds a Canadian passport comes soon after he conducted a "non-political" interview of prime minister Narendra Modi while general elections were underway. In the interview, questions like whether Modi likes mangoes and how he eats them drew a lot of mirth and derision from social media users. Kumar is also known for projecting himself as a uber nationalist. One of his recent films, Toilet – Ek Prem Katha, was seen as a vehicle to promote a much-touted scheme of the BJP government. His earlier films are seen as vehicles of a muscular government ready to take on enemies of the state through assassinations and kidnappings. His films like Kesari, Rustom, Gold and Airlift, among others, focus on themes relating to nationalism. Meanwhile the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has stoked nationalism while using the national security plank for its electoral campaign. Kumar's citizenship issue has become a big deal because BJP supporters frequently subject people from India's religious minorities to "loyalty tests."
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: So? If it's mentioned it does not mean it should be given a single paragraph of its own. Shahid • Talk2me 15:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention Canadian newspapers and professors from McGill University and Carleton University. Not to mention that the actor had been publicly lying for years about his citizenship. And you ask, "So?" Please read:
  • Blackwell, Tom (13 May 2019), "Canadian passport sparks controversy for Modi-supporting 'Brad Pitt of Bollywood'", Nationalpost, National Post, archived from the original on 22 September 2020, retrieved 29 May 2020, An inconvenient fact challenged Akshay Kumar's nationalist credentials: under pressure, he admitted he traded his Indian citizenship for a Canadian passport. In fact, he owns a mansion in Oakville, Ont., once said 'Toronto is my home,' and in 2011 campaigned for Canada's own prime minister at the time, Stephen Harper. 'What's most embarrassing is he's involved in urging (Indian) people to go to the polls, and he doesn't have voting rights,' said Narendra Subramanian, a McGill University political scientist. As well as adding a dose of Canada to the world's largest exercise in democracy, the curious controversy underscores the potent identity politics unbottled under Modi's regime. Modi was elected partly on promises to curb India's pervasive corruption and modernize its economy. But Modi's BJP has been blamed for also stoking sectarian fervor among India's Hindu majority, with results that include the lynching of several Muslims for slaughtering cows. As a Hindi-speaking hunk of sorts, he fits well with the BJP's messaging, which includes both Hindu nationalism and a muscular Indian patriotism, says Chinnaiah Jangam, a Carleton University history professor. "Akshay Kumar represents that sort of high-caste, Hindu male power," said Jangam. Said Subramanian: "He is very pro-BJP, very much sold on that line and pushes for a kind of militaristic Indian nationalism connected to Hindu identity." As part of its election campaign, the party produced a biopic that extolled Modi's virtues and launched a TV channel devoted to the party. Both were nixed by India's election commission as campaign ads in disguise. Jangam said that likely led to what was billed as a "non-political" conversation between Modi and Kumar. The prime minister rarely does interviews with actual journalists and has not had a press conference since being elected. Then questions started being raised about Kumar's citizenship, especially after he declined to say if he had voted himself. Some pointed to a 2017 interview in which he explained "I am an honorary (Canadian) citizen. I've been given an honorary thing. It's a thing that people should be proud about." Then an enterprising journalist pointed out that Ottawa has only ever named six honorary Canadians, luminaries like Raul Wallenberg, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. It's unclear on what basis or when Kumar became a Canadian. An immigrant must have permanent-resident status and have lived here for three of the previous five years to be eligible. A 2005 Toronto Star story says he became a permanent resident in 2001, while Postmedia News reported in 2011 he was not a citizen. If, as he says, he's been away from Canada for several years, that suggests he obtained the passport while Harper was prime minister. In fact, many Bollywood and other Indian elites obtain passports from developed countries, a status symbol that lets them travel more widely, said Jangam. "It's a class privilege," he said. "And most importantly, if things go wrong in India he has a foot in Canada."
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Please be more concise instead of pasting full blocks of text from sources. All of it shows that his citizenship merits mention in the article, not necessarily in the lead and certainly not a singular paragraph which should be separated from his off-screen work and personal life. This is a BLP of an actor, not a politician. Shahid • Talk2me 15:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
You will get your chance at the WT:INDIA RfC. I'll be happy to then ping six or seven South Asia-issues-related admins for monitoring the discussion for adherence to WP policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
He is very much in political news down to the present day:
  • BBC News (13 September 2022), Akshay Kumar's ad on road safety criticised for promoting dowry, BBC, An Indian government advertisement on road safety is being criticised for allegedly promoting dowry. The ad, which features Bollywood star Akshay Kumar, was tweeted by federal transport minister Nitin Gadkari. It shows Kumar scolding a father for sending away his newly-wed daughter in a car that has just two airbags. While some social media users praised the ad for highlighting safety, others felt it promoted dowry by hinting that the car was given by the father. Paying and accepting dowry is a centuries-old tradition in South Asia where the bride's parents gift cash, cars, clothes and jewellery to the groom's family.The practice is a punishable offence in India, but it continues to thrive - leaving women vulnerable to domestic violence and even death. Last year, a study found that dowry was paid in 95% of the marriages in the country even though it's been illegal since 1961.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: This is becoming funny. He is not' a politician - he's an actor, and you're trying to emphasise his political positions and give too much importance to his off-screen life just because he has opinions. If you want to start an RfC, this is the time and place to do it. Shahid • Talk2me 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
He is in the political news, that is what matters. When as recently as three weeks ago, October 17, 2022: The New Yorker, (see link above) report had:

I watched “Samrat Prithviraj” on the morning of its release—“first day first show,” as it’s called in Bollywood—with Nandini Ramnath, the film critic for Scroll. Ramnath was excellent, acerbic company for a movie with plenty to be acerbic about. In the lead role was Akshay Kumar, an aging action star with a face as lean as a greyhound’s. Kumar’s Prithviraj is a self-righteous bore, forever harping on about Hindu tradition and the need for Hindus to stick together. (The film’s obviousness won it tax exemptions in several states ruled by the B.J.P.) His sandstone palace is bathed in a golden light—the perfect venue for his wedding to an ingénue of a princess. But Prithviraj can spare little time, and just a couple of song-and-dance sequences, for love. Most of the film is taken up either by his councils with advisers about battles or by the battles themselves. In the climax, Prithviraj dies—but not before he rewrites history by killing Ghori. (Lions in a coliseum are involved.) The film’s epilogue calls Prithviraj the “last Hindu ruler in north India” (a falsehood) and laments that, after his death, India recovered its honor only when it gained independence from the British, in 1947—thus conflating homegrown Muslim rulers with European colonists in a sweep of rhetoric. When the lights came up, there were barely a dozen people left in the theatre, down from the twenty or so at the beginning. In the weeks that followed, “Samrat Prithviraj” proved to be a box-office dud. It’s the sort of fact that some filmmakers cited to me in hopeful tones, as if to say that the Hindu-nationalist playbook doesn’t guarantee a hit—that the whims of the audience will ultimately thwart any ideological conquest of Bollywood. But this idea ignores the sheer volume of oxygen taken up by films like “Samrat Prithviraj,” and their accretive psychic weight. And it overlooks the movies that aren’t being made, the stories that aren’t being told, the things that aren’t being said. “The worrying aspect,” Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub told me, “is that, out of fear, you draw back and you draw back and you draw back, until you step on the very people you ought to be defending.”

we are not just talking about the personal life of a movie actor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: First, these blocks of copied text are really bordering on WP:BLUDGEON, and this example above by New Yorker is about the film, not Kumar. He is an actor, a movie star known for his acting, and every publicity he, his personal life, and his political views gets is due to his fame as an actor. Now stick to citizenship. It deserves to be mentioned, not expanded in the article's lead. And when it's mentioned, it's part of his personal life. This is a BLP. You don't get to use this article for some kind of messaging. Shahid • Talk2me 15:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
When an actor's citizenship status is reported around the world as a part of the aspect of his politics, both promoting Canadian interests in India, and promoting in ways that have been interpreted politically to be a part of Indian and Hindu nationalism in India including voting rights, the issue is no longer personal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: It is always personal. Read WP:BLP. You're talking agenda, not Wikipedia policy, which should guide us all. Shahid • Talk2me 16:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The RfC will be the test of that. I've said repeatedly I'll have it at WT:INDIA once I have a few sentences added on his politics to complement his politically awarded citizenship. Indian immigrants to Canada are not given an instant award of citizenship by virtue of a political service rendered to a Conservative party government there.. In the meantime, you could look for the New Yorker, BBC twice, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, South China Morning Post for such assiduously reported stories about his wife and children, which you seem to consider the NPOV complement of his politically awarded citizenship. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I insist that an RfC be held here. It could be started at WT:INCINE and WT:FILMBIO. The right place is this talk page. Shahid • Talk2me 16:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I apologize, I did mean it will be held here but prominently advertized at WT:INDIA. See the RfC at Talk:The Kashmir Files after the director's hissy fit on Twitter.
If you are tempted to ask, "BBC twice?" my reply is "Apologies, I should have said, "Twice in four months." The story referenced above in June 2022, had,

Kumar has made news in recent years not just for his films but for his growing proximity with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, even earning the moniker of "poster boy for Hindu nationalism". No surprises then that the film got a big leg up from the government. Three BJP ruled states made it tax free - to bring ticket prices down and make it more appealing to audiences. And Home Minister Amit Shah, after watching it with Kumar at a special screening, described it as an important part "in the journey of India's cultural revival which will take the country back to its glory days".

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
So, if his so-called proximity with Modi made news, it could be mentioned. I have yet to find a source where Kumar publicly delineates his political positions. And his citizenship, again, deserves to be included in a most fair and proportional way. Shahid • Talk2me 17:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
It is politically awarded, and hence a part of his political record, not what matrimony begat. Of course, I will be fair. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: You won't have any other choice, my friend. For now, I want an RfC exactly on the question whether citizenship should have a separate paragraph. This is my argument with you now. Shahid • Talk2me 17:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Of course not, it will be a separate paragraph with citizenship and politics. That is what the RfC will be about. You are yourself on record saying :
For the record, if your contribution is fair, balanced, and well in place, I will be the first to support you just as I supported the citizenship section. Shahid • Talk2me 15:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
[reply]
The citizenship was a separate lead section for three years, supported by you, and acknowledged as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
RfCs are not about WP:POINTY resolutions, of ad hoc edits without offering arguments related to WP:ONUS. Thus far you have produced no sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am not arguing with you, only using this page to collect sources between which I am also responding to your interruptions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Kumar's citizenship has been the subject of discussion in atleast a dozen of sources and the information belongs to the lead, even if restricted to a line in a broader paragraph that discusses his ties with Modi, Hindu Nationalism, historical revisionism etc. They have been covered even in academic sources! On an aside, I am not inclined to assume good faith with someone who declares to be from India and regularly edits Bollywood articles but feign surprise when informed about Kumar's proximity to the Indian right. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: I'm happy you proclaim you do not assume good faith. Please be warned now that your last message is no less than a personal attack on me. Discuss content, not editors. I haven't lived in India for years, and trust me, my long-term contribution to Wikipedia and to the Indian cinema project is well known to all for me to be concerned about someone's self-admitted bad faith on me. Don't know what you mean by "feign surprise", I'm not surprised, I just, as it happens, don't care, because I don't care about actors' politics. I don't even know how his political stand is relevant in this discussion, we're talking citizenship. To the point, my whole point is that citizenship does deserve to be mentioned in the lead, but in a paragraph along with information on his personal life and off-screen work.
@Fowler&fowler: Structural arguments require no sources. Why do you even insist on having his personal information attached to his film career and not citizenship, which is a personal matter at the end of the day? I do not understand your rationale. Shahid • Talk2me 19:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  1. Dore, Bhavya (31 January 2021), "The Player: Akshay Kumar's role as Hindutva's poster boy", Caravan Magazine, Behind this wave of nationalism in Hindi cinema, however, there seems to be a system of unspoken collusion. The image-conscious government watches closely not just the content of films but also the opinions publicly expressed by celebrities. Some are approached directly to amplify the government's voice. Those who cooperate are rewarded in many ways: tax cuts, government assignments, national awards and so on. Those who do not are punished through the misuse of institutions. Akshay Kumar emerged early on as a willing colluder, and has been able to skilfully find common ground between his own beliefs and the government's agenda.The Hindu-nationalist establishment finds Kumar useful due to a constellation of factors: the perception of him as an outsider to the film industry; people's image of him as a Hindu alternative to the three big Muslim superstars—Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
And now I am not even responding to your interruptions, for as Lars Fogelin, the archaeologist of early Buddhism, once said, "At some point continual negative evidence begins to mean something." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
By "negative evidence" he meant the absence of evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Feel free to evade the issue and continue this rude and brash attitude. My experience with you, everytime you're saying you're out, you're quick to come back. The source above is totally unrelated to the point in question. I'm talking in apples and you're replying in oranges. The matter at hand is citizenship (see the heading and my initial complaint and reaction to your edit warring), and it might merit mention in the lead, but not to the point where other personal matters cannot lie with it in the same paragraph. Your attempts to single it out here and emphasise it far beyond its relative importance, will not be approved, and that's why an RfC is probably in order right away. Shahid • Talk2me 20:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  1. Muralidharan, Siddharth (21 August 2022), "R. Madhavan is slowly fashioning himself as the Akshay Kumar of the south", The Print, When it comes to big stars openly extending support to the BJP or Prime Minister Narendra Modi from Tamil Nadu, it has always been 'Superstar' Rajinikanth. But the actor with a massive fan following in the state and outside has stopped short of formally aligning with the BJP and just said he would take the path of 'spiritual politics'. But if not Rajinikanth, then who is best positioned to be a BJP cheerleader in Tamil Nadu? If you have been observing actor R. Madhavan of late, you know the answer. He is not there yet, but is slowly fashioning himself into a possible Akshay Kumar of the south. From endorsing Modi without context, flaunting his Brahminical thread on the chest to Islamophobic jokes – Madhavan is fast walking into a political hall of fame inhabited by stars such as Kangana Ranaut and Akshay Kumar. These are early days. Rajinikanth's 'spirituality' politics can only take it so far. The party would need more cheerleaders and Madhavan is that educated, patriotic family man who works for middle-class voters. The process of becoming an Akshay Kumar will be complete in quick time.
You have hit it really big when your name itself has become a metaphor for politics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Or as Ahmad Faraz said: اور فرازؔ چاہئیں کتنی محبتیں تجھے
ماؤں نے تیرے نام پر بچوں کا نام رکھ دیا (aur faraaz chaahiyeN kitni mohabbaten tujhe; maaon ne tere naam par bachchon ka naam rakh diya) how much more confirmation do you need Faraz. Mothers have named their children after you, such a metaphor you have become) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Me on the other hand, as Ahmad Faraz also said: میں نے تو سب حساب جاں بر سر عام رکھ دیا (maine to sab hisaab-e-jaan bar-sar-e-aam rakh diya) have laid bare the account of life in public, i.e. I am not using the crutches of structural arguments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Just as I said, "My experience with you, everytime you're saying you're out, you're quick to come back." As I said, I'm talking oranges and you're replying in oranges. Okay, for now, off-screen work is incorporated into the introductory sentence. But his marriage should be in the last sentence. That's all I'm saying now. My whole point at this stage - move the mention of his wife to the last paragraph along with citizenship. Shahid • Talk2me 21:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Forget it, it wont' happen. Admins have propounded on WP:ONUS it is yours. You're the one who is dickering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not talking about his political position here - why do you keep bringing that up?
My point is "Kumar is married to actress and writer Twinkle Khanna, with whom he has two children." - it should be in the last section along with citizenship.
And then, which admins are you talking about? Shahid • Talk2me 21:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Married and children is not notable for the lead, only the infobox. It is nothing but a blatant move to pad the lead to minimize the citizenship issue. I know about sources. Perhaps you will recall the floundering FAC of Dimple Kapadia. I lost interest in it so feeble it had become. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you will also recall what admin RegentsPark said about my knowledge of sources at that FAC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I also remember that right after that FAC you were warned for your disruptive ways. I was very close to starting an ANI discussion on your disruptice "reviewing" then. Shahid • Talk2me 21:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
What does disruptive have to do with a knowledge of the sources? You can have the ANI now; it seems to be a WP pastime of late. Any time they don't have the sources, or their sources are no of due weight they hide under the ANI skirts. Please proceed. You do the ANI. I will do the RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: cherrypicking sources to justify your agenda is not really what Wikipedia is about. The ANI should be started, indeed, and it's got more to do not with sources but with your disheartening, rude attitude. Shahid • Talk2me 21:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Admin Vanamonde93 has emphasized WP:ONUS on Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:Muhammad of Ghor. I recommend that you not jump the gun and let me complete collecting the sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: How are these pages even related here? It's frustrating because it seems like you don't even grasp what I'm actually arguing for. Shahid • Talk2me 21:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that you allow me to complete collecting the sources, as you have already gone on record to have stated, to frame a last paragraph about his politics and his political citizenship grant. And to then have the RfC about that paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Go ahead and keep working, no one is forcing you to keep replying (that too, without actually addressing my points). All you want to do it to emphasise this section to the point that even a short sentence about his marital status can't be in the same paragraph with it. Shahid • Talk2me 21:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Not even one sentence about his marital status. It is not notable for the lead. We can ask that too in the RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The infobox already says: Spouse Twinkle Khanna (m. 2001) Children 2 Relatives Rajesh Khanna (father-in-law) Dimple Kapadia (mother-in-law) Rinke Khanna (sister-in-law) Why are we leaving the other notables out of the lead? And his alma mater also in the lead? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Saying it is not notable for the lead really shows how little you know about actor BLPs, with all due respect to your experience with other articles. As for the citizenship section, Krimuk has said above it should be shortened anyway. And the RfC will not be started by you, as I don't trust that it will be neutral. An uninvolved admin will do it, preferably Abecedare. Shahid • Talk2me 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
You know what? I'll remove his marriage from the lead now. Go and work on your papers and we'll see how it turns out and what proportion citizenship should have. Shahid • Talk2me 21:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
"Kumar is married to actress and writer Twinkle Khanna, with whom he has two children." Removed for now. We'll include a question about that in the RfC. Shahid • Talk2me 21:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Of course you have to remove it. See the FAs Amy Adams, Ben Affleck, or Shah Rukh Khan. Only highly public marriages as in Anjelina Jolie are mentioned in the lead. I've already stated I'll have that too in the RfC statement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Having written several BLP FAs on actors and contributed significantly to one of those you've mentioned above, I should know. But I have to mention that, as you always do, you cherrypicked those examples that serve you best. Deepika Padukone, Priyanka Chopra, Sonam Kapoor, Hrithik Roshan - all have marital information, so please, focus on what know better. Shahid • Talk2me 21:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Would you like me to do a calculation at the film FAs and figure out the proportion of marriage mention in the lead to figure out who is cherry picking? If more are not mentioned, then will we remove the marriage/children from the RfC? OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
So, another ego trip is underway I guess. Fowler, this isn't how it works. If you want to discuss it seriously, most Hollywood stars have been married more than once. Most Indian actors, and I've worked on a couple, do provide this information. For the record, in my last FA I didn't include this information. Here I think it has more relevance. But it's been removed for now and let the people decide. The reason for this discussion, and what concerns me more is your insistence to single out the citizenship paragraph and emphasise it, which says a lot about your approach. That's why I'm observing the process, and that's why I want more people to share their views on the matter. Shahid • Talk2me 22:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The main topic of this section, pertaining to the length, proportion and importance of Kumar's citizenship, and the question of whether its coverage in the lead abides by WP:DUE, still stand. Those who will join the discussion should know. Shahid • Talk2me 22:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I've sampled the first 24 media biography FAs. Only 5 mention the family; 2 do so in the context of alcoholism or controversy. The overwhelming majority don't. See above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
OK I'm done with this non-conversation with you. Meanwhile I have collected enough sources. In the next couple of days I will formulate the paragraph (including the mention of marriage and children in the lead in addition to the infobox) and will then proceed to the RfC. I'd say by Friday November 11, Veterans Day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you for that, this is indeed a non-conversation. I have to review a recent FAC and in the meanwhile I want more people to weigh in on the matter and offer their input on whether the discussion of Kumar's citizenship is proportionate in the lead per WP:DUE (and honestly your quote blocks aren't helpful and are irrelevant to what I was discussing in the first place). So far Krimuk has said it isn't but I believe we'll know better when you're done with your work on the rest of your intended additions. I'd still maintain that what interests me the most is whether everything is presented fairly and in the right proportion. If it is, you'll have my full support and you know that. Let's wait and see what you come up with. Shahid • Talk2me 22:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
For the final time. The citizenship section had been the last and stand-alone section for three years and had your support. There was no mention of the family or children in the lead for the same three years and that also had your support, as by your own admission you were actively monitoring the lead, and your edit of October 14 2022 betrayed no hint of family in the lead. Someone has chosen to add the family sentence. The WP:ONUS is on them to first demonstrate that it is lead worthy, per WP policy before it can be included in an RfC. Otherwise, you have the option for an admin to lock the lead in the pre-dispute consensus state which had your support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Thus far the film biography FAs overwhelming do not include family life. The Indian FAs don't have a special dispensation even if that is the case.
But I will tally all 80 or 90 odd FAs soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
And lo and behold it is you, user:Shshsh who added the family bit in this fabled edit of this morning, November the 7th, 2022, 10:10 Greenwich Mean Time. And you are jumping for a spot for that edit in an RfC at 22:50 Greenwich Mean Time? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
What happened? An epiphany of WP:DUE after three years? For that is the only argument you seem to be advancing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: The citizenship still has my support, the question is the extent of its coverage in the lead. Do you actually remember how many times I used to restore your revision throughout this entire period? I do admit though that Krimuk, an editor who I respect and who has contributed to a large number of BLPs on actors, brought this up in the previous conversation, and made me rethink that. That's why I think it would only benefit from a broader number of opinions, and honestly your eagerness to keep it in a single paragraph and emphasise it so much makes me wonder as to why someone would push it so much.
As for the marriage, I added it today, didn't you notice it? What's the problem really? You don't need to go over all the other FAs, this is already becoming WP:OTHER. This should be discussed individually in the context of this particular page. In my FAs I actually didn't always mention such info but it's celebrity marriage, as you called it in your overview, and we should think whether it's crucial or not. At this point, this is the least important issue (go to my first message, it's been only about citizenship throughout the day) against the more relevant topic of his citizenship, which needs to be re-examined by the community. Shahid • Talk2me 22:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that an RfC requires a topic to be discussed on a talk page for a critical length of time. It requires transparency by editors that they not throw a red herring about personal life one fine morning after three years to making a case for the citizenship to be a personal matter. There is no chance that the RfC will include anything about the marriage or children. You can have a separate RfC after this RfC has concluded. For the last three weeks we have only talked about adding a politics supplement to his political grant of citizenship. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
You seriously just forgot to admit that it was you who had added the marriage and family bit this morning?
Especially now, the RfC will not be watered down with perfunctory mention of non-notable recent addition to which one disputant is a party. This very morning. For the first time in three years. I am flabbergasted!!! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Forgot? I didn't forget anything. I've added it because his off-screen work and personal life do not belong in the career section to begin with. And please note, my friend, that I'm not being interrogated by you to have to "admit" anything. I've removed the personal life part, it does not require an RfC, it's you who offered to include it there. I've found a solution by taking his off-screen work to the introductory paragraph because it makes no sense to have it right after the summary of his acting career, but the question about the weight of his citizenship in the lead still remains. My entire point is about citizenship and whether it's proportionate per WP:DUE. Krimuk brought that to my attention, and I want more people to offer their input on it. Please cut out the drama. Shahid • Talk2me 23:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


You added the marriage mention this morning. This morning. How does it become the topic for an RfC. Citizenship has been a stand-alone paragraph for three years. Three years. We have been talking about the politics addition for three weeks. Three weeks. This my last communication before the RfC which will have nothing about marriage or family that you chose to add this morning. My last communication before the RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Please DO NOT add the gratuitous "my friend." We have no friendship on Wikipedia nor off it. Nothing whatsoever. Used in such a context, "my friend" can sound patronizing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm amused. Obviously "my friend" was meant in jest, and was indeed used against your brusque manner. You're indeed the last person on WP I'd call a friend. I generally call friends those I highly respect and whose work I admire. By the way, as I said above, "My experience with you, everytime you're saying you're out, you're quick to come back". I've never come across someone who's said repeatedly that it is their last message just to return after a few minutes so many times. The rest of your rude behaviour will be addressed on ANI, not here. Shahid • Talk2me 00:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll repeat that the main topic of this section (please do not reply to the previous message below this current message, so others see it), pertaining to the length, proportion and importance of Kumar's citizenship, and the question of whether its coverage in the lead abides by WP:DUE, still stand. Those who will join the discussion should know. Shahid • Talk2me 23:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Okay, let me spare you the waste of time. I thought about it and I accept your rationale that the infobox provides this information (marriage) and I said before that I myself normally have not necessarily included it in FAs I worked on. Collecting FAs for the marriage fact does not work anyway, per WP:OTHER, as every article should be looked at individually - I said above, there's no rule or pattern to follow, so it's a pointless argument which I never supported. To sum it up, I do not insist at all on having the marriage in the lead, nor do I think we need it in the RfC, I just do not want the lead to emphasise parts against WP:DUE, that's my point, so you can move on and focus on gathering your sources on politics and citizenship as far as I'm concerned. Looking forward to the outcome. By the way, one of the sources mentions "re-application for an Indian passport" - what does it mean? Can he regain his Indian citizenship? Has there been an answer? I don't quite understand why he'd gone through this entire process to begin with if he never intended to leave India. There must be something we don't fully know. Shahid • Talk2me 13:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It is one of many things the actor has said for which no proof was ever provided. He said he applied for Canadian permanent residence during a lean phase 20-odd years ago. But it would have been a cinch to post the permanent residence card on Twitter. Every permanent resident has it. He has also said, he had an honorary citizenship and dual citizenship, both turned out to be false. Now he has said he has applied for an Indian citizenship. How difficult would it be to post the application on Twitter?
What we do know is that he was given a political award of a citizenship (without having to wait as a permanent resident) in 2011 for both promoting Canada in India and for campaigning for the conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. It has to do with conservative politics, the same that has stood him in good stead with the ruling establishment in India.
As for the reference, the author of the book is using Kumar's own alleged story, India --> Canada ---> India, as a metaphor for some migrant character in a movie who returns to India. The citation she gives is this India Today story, which has nothing except what Kumar has said (taken at face value without any evidence being provided). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The history seems to be:
  • He made movies that were shot in Canada in the late 1990s. See this article in the Canada Encyclopedia
  • In 2009, he met with Stephen Harper very conspicuously in India. See source above.
  • In June 2010, the Canadian government appoints him Canadian Tourism Commission Ambassador for India, see here
  • This is reported in a Globe and Mail story of August 2010. See here
  • By September 2012, the Canadian press already mentioned his Canadian citizenship. See the Jenny Uechi story below (or above; I can't figure out where I am. :)) which complains that Kumar received his citizenship in weeks, whereas others have to wait years. (see here)
  • In 2016, he was made to wait at London airport and his Canadian citizenship was reported in the Economic Times story that is cited (in the red warning banner) anytime anyone wants to edit this talk page.
  • But the controversy came to a head in the lead up to the 2019 Indian general elections when he became involved in projecting himself as a hyper-nationalist and aligning himself with the government, making public service announcements asking Indians to vote, conducting a soft-ball interview (some would say beach ball interview) with a sitting prime minister who is notoriously reticent about giving any interview, and so forth. This was an order of magnitude more hands on that say a left-leaning Indian actor of the 1950s or 60s.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I see, very interesting, thank you for explaining it in your own words. Now I get more sense of the story, which sounds very suspicious and unflattering to him, to say the least. Okay, keep working on your sources, I'll let you and Abecedare complete your investigation. Looking forward to seeing the outcome. Shahid • Talk2me 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
As for the politics, any one report might not mean much, but when there is a long sequence, one after another, it begins to add up. See for example:
Patel, Aakar (2022), Price of the Modi Years, Penguin Random House, India, (Farmer's protest) Aware of the reality of media in India, they also began a newspaper of their own, Trolley Times, circulated at the protest sites. They also opened social media accounts and began to broadcast live the events from the stages they had erected on the highway. They attracted support internationally. For one, their cause—the hardy peasant standing up to corporate greed—was popular and their protest both massive and striking. Celebrities jumped in and discovered how vicious the social media space in India is. Tweets from the singer Rihanna, climate activist Greta Thunberg and porn star Mia Khalifa became front page news and also, more ridiculously, earned them finger-wagging lectures from Jaishankar's foreign ministry' and pious and identical pushback responses from Indian celebrities like Sachin Tendulkar and Akshay Kumar in coordinated fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Just catching up with this topic after I was pinged/contacted by F&f and Shshshsh respectively. Can I get some help with a reading list about the citizenship controversy (not sources that discuss the subject's right-wing connection unless they do so in context of the citizenship saga; that is a linked but larger topic, and I want to start with a manageable nibble)? Here are the sources I have seen mentioned already. I would appreciate additions to the list from anyone... while retaining the right to remove sources that IMO are non-RS, unrelated, tangential, or generally not helpful to my understanding the subject :-). To avoid wasting effort and pixels, there is no need for quotes; I'd prefer to read the material in context although I may request quotes later if I am unable to access a source myself. Thanks for the help!

PS: May I also request that editors avoid the back and forth arguments for now? Lets wait till the sources have been gathered, a concrete proposal has been made and then we can discuss its merits. Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources directly related to the citizenship controversy Abecedare (talk)
  1. "Harper adds a bit of Bollywood to campaign". BramptonGuardian.com.
    ... contemporary report about Kumar's campaigning for Harper in 2011 (may not be too useful, but listing for completeness)
  2. "Akshay Kumar trolled for Canadian passport after BMC tweet". The Hindu. 7 July 2019.
    The PTI write-up, in The Hindu, of the 2019 events leading to the disclosure of Candian citizenship
  3. Blackwell, Tom (21 May 2019). "Bollywood actor who campaigned for Stephen Harper was granted Canadian citizenship by Conservative government". National Post.
    ... the post-disclosure controversy in Canada
  4. Blackwell, Tom (13 May 2019), "Canadian passport sparks controversy for Modi-supporting 'Brad Pitt of Bollywood'", Nationalpost, National Post, archived from the original on 22 September 2020, retrieved 29 May 2020
    ...the post-disclosure controversy in India (for Kumar)
  5. Asia Times staff (6 May 2019). "Actor's Canadian citizenship leaves India's ruling BJP red faced". Asia Times.
    ...the post-disclosure controversy in India (for Kumar/BJP)
  6. Bhardwaj, Deeksha (14 May 2019). "Akshay Kumar's Canadian roots go deeper — from campaigning for a PM to owning mansion there". ThePrint.
    post-disclosure analysis of Kumar-Canada links
  7. Luthra, Rajesh (8 May 2019), "Why Akshay Kumar's national loyalty is no private matter", Newslaundry
    Opinion piece on the events
  8. "Akshay Kumar says he has applied for Indian passport, explains how he got Canadian citizenship at HTLS 2019". Hindustan Times. 6 December 2019.
    Post-disclosure explanations and comments by Kumar. Lots of different writes-up covering the same/similar answers, eg, Outlook, Financial Times Financial Express, The Print, India Today etc
  9. Dore, Bhavya. "Akshay Kumar's role as Hindutva's poster boy". The Caravan. No. Febuary 2021.
    ... cover-story in The Caravan that discusses the Canadian citizenship in context of Kumar's image and political associations
Thanks so much for stopping by. Shahid • Talk2me 00:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Abecedare:|| May I importune you for something else? If you see the article being edited frenetically as it has been recently, could you use the WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions and freeze it in the this version of October 8, 2022 before the controversy began as you did at Talk:The_Kashmir_Files/Archive_12#Time_for_RFC? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
May I also request that we add our sources separately. Shshsh has used the sources I added to the article a number of years ago, and then placed an article from the
The Hindu about trolling above them. I will be removing my sources from this compilation. He has made other errors such as calling the Financial Express, a low-grade Indian newspaper the "Financial Times" (one of the world's respected newspaper published in Britain.). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the sources I added to the article from Shshsh's list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Those were not Shahid's edits/errors to the list, but mine! The FT/FE mixup must have been muscle memory while typing, and I reordered the sources not in order of importance but in rough chronological/logical order so that I can form a mental picture of the events (see my glosses). Don't read any POV into them because I am still only trying to learn about the subject and don't have any pre-formed or strong views about the subject or the Canadian saga. Abecedare (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Apologies. I have separated the sources below into those that have been in the article for three years, and those found recently. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic thread
@Fowler&fowler: A few points: A) I can't believe you actually criticised "my" sources while they were actually added by Abecedare. B) My username is Shshshsh, not Shshsh. You can go with Shahid if it's easier for you. C) The fact that something was here for three years doesn't mean it's good. It means that no one really paid attention to it. It hasn't really been reviewed by the community. I for one trusted your contribution, and now, after Krimuk's point, I want more people to share their views on the matter. Good that Abecedare's here. Shahid • Talk2me 08:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Abecedare has already requested:PS: May I also request that editors avoid the back and forth arguments for now? Lets wait till the sources have been gathered, a concrete proposal has been made and then we can discuss its merits. Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: True. I accept. Here it is - the combination of Abecedare and yourself might be a good one. I believe Abecedare will do the best for the article, and I will be here to observe your contribution and fully support it if it's fair and well-measured, once I read it all. Here it is, a message of conciliation and good faith on my part. Good luck on finding the best sources, and if you need help, please contact me. Shahid • Talk2me 12:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Again: Abecedare has already requested:PS: May I also request that editors avoid the back and forth arguments for now? Lets wait till the sources have been gathered, a concrete proposal has been made and then we can discuss its merits. Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Did you actually read my reply? Read it again, and if you didn't understand it, let Abecedare judge if my peaceful reply could be subsumed under "back and forth arguments". Shahid • Talk2me 13:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
For the third time: Abecedare has already requested:PS: May I also request that editors avoid the back and forth arguments for now? Lets wait till the sources have been gathered, a concrete proposal has been made and then we can discuss its merits. Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that you not keep violating that by insisting on having the last word and then dickering with it in POV ways. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The one who's violating it is yourself. I wrote a good-faith message and you started another argument. Let Abecedare decide if my message was out of place. I can directly address him before an ANI is started on your rude and disruptive methods on talk pages. Please do not reply to my messages and respect Abecedare just as you preach. Shahid • Talk2me 13:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
For the record:
  • Edit 1 of Shshsh: "True. I accept. Here it is - the combination of Abecedare and yourselfismight be a good one. I believe you two Abecedare will do the best for the article, and so will you I will be here to observe your contribution and fully support it if it's fair and well-measured, once I read it all.
  • Edit 2 of Shshsh: I believe Abecedare will do the best for the article and so will you, and I will be here to observe ...
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Please also do not make threat of ANI visits. Thus far on this talk page it is you who seems to be violating talk page guidelines for behavior. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
What's the problem? I merely corrected my message in accordance with what I really believe in. My last message still assumes good-faith on you. Please respect Abecedare's request: "May I also request that editors avoid the back and forth arguments for now? Lets wait till the sources have been gathered, a concrete proposal has been made and then we can discuss its merits." EOD. Shahid • Talk2me 13:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Done for now. Will give it some thought offline and try to come up with some ideas or a proposal for what we can do next, tomorrow. But, do let me know if there additional sources covering an aspect of the events/controversy not captured by the above list (again, other than sources about the wider Kumar-BJP linkage, which the above list mentions but does not detail; lets deal with expanding that part separately). @F&f: I have seen the sources you have listed below and will keep them in mind too as I do the thinking. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delay. Had to deal with some RL stuff yesterday. Will catch up with the remaining discussion and get back here in 6-10hrs. Abecedare (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's sources related to the citizenship

Sources about citizenship that have been in the article for three years
Note The quotes have also been in the article for three years.
  1. Cheadle, Bruce (16 November 2009), "Harper goes Bollywood to sell Canada in India", The Star, Toronto, archived from the original on 13 July 2020, retrieved 29 May 2020, The sobering reminder of the entire region's often inflamed ethnic and religious violence stood in jarring contrast to Harper's next stop: a feel-good photo-opportunity in the penthouse of a pricey modern hotel with Akshay Kumar, an A-list Bollywood star and an Indo-Canadian, who brought out a huge throng of Indian media to an event promoting Canadian tourism. Harper also announced that Kumar, a black belt in karate, will be a torchbearer for the 2010 Winter Olympics. (what led to the citizenship)
  2. "The Q&A: Akshay Kumar, Bollywood ambassador". The Economist. Archived from the original on 12 August 2017. Retrieved 23 June 2017. Kumar in a 2010 interview with the Economist claimed he had "dual citizenship."
  3. PTI (April 8, 2016), "Akshay Kumar delayed at Heathrow airport over immigration issues", The Economic Times, Synopsis: AkshayKumar, who is a Canadian national, does not require a visa to travel to the UK for tourism and business purposes for up to 90 days. Bollywood star Akshay Kumar was made to wait at Heathrow Airport as UK immigration officials checked the details of his Canadian passport. The 48-year-old flew into London from Mumbai for the shoot of his film 'Rustom' but had to wait an additional hour- and-a-half as the authorities checked the entry requirements to the UK for Canadian nationals yesterday.
  4. Blackwell, Tom (13 May 2019), "Canadian passport sparks controversy for Modi-supporting 'Brad Pitt of Bollywood'", Nationalpost, National Post, archived from the original on 22 September 2020, retrieved 29 May 2020, An inconvenient fact challenged Akshay Kumar's nationalist credentials: under pressure, he admitted he traded his Indian citizenship for a Canadian passport. In fact, he owns a mansion in Oakville, Ont., once said 'Toronto is my home,' and in 2011 campaigned for Canada's own prime minister at the time, Stephen Harper. 'What's most embarrassing is he's involved in urging (Indian) people to go to the polls, and he doesn't have voting rights,' said Narendra Subramanian, a McGill University political scientist."
  5. Blackwell, Tom (21 May 2019), "Bollywood actor who campaigned for Stephen Harper was granted Canadian citizenship by Conservative government", Nationalpost, National Post, archived from the original on 29 May 2020, retrieved 29 May 2020, In the thick of the 2011 federal election, Stephen Harper appeared in the Indo-Canadian heartland of Ontario with a ringer. At a campaign stop in Brampton, Bollywood mega-star Akshay Kumar praised the then prime minister, danced on stage with his wife, Laureen Harper, and thrilled the audience. And at some point, the Harper government invoked a little-known law to grant the actor Canadian citizenship, circumventing the usual, stringent residency requirements for would-be Canadians, says a former Conservative cabinet minister. MP Tony Clement, who as industry minister met with Kumar in Mumbai, says the citizenship grant was just a thank you for the actor's help in promoting Canadian tourism and trade to a huge emerging economy – not a reward for partisan support. 'Basically, he had offered to put that star power to use to advance Canada-India relations, our trade relations, our commercial relations, in the movie sector, in the tourism sector,' said Clement.
  6. Dyer, Evan (Parliamentary Affairs Bureau) (7 March 2020), Canada's politicians have stayed mostly silent about a wave of anti-Muslim violence in India, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) News, retrieved 14 September 2020 Quote: "(Former prime minister Stephen) Harper campaigned in 2011 alongside one of Modi's biggest celebrity backers, Bollywood star Akshay Kumar, who was later given a special grant of Canadian citizenship."
Sources about citizenship found later
  1. Uechi, Jenny (September 2, 2012), "Kafkaesque bureaucracy denies citizenship to legitimate Canadians", Vancouver Observer, They are among the "Lost Canadians," a group of Canadians who have been denied or stripped of citizenship by federal government due to legal technicalities. While the majority of these cases have been resolved through the 2009 Bill C-37, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act, some people are waiting years to receive the same citizenship papers that others -- such as Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar -- was granted within weeks.
  2. Newsroom (May 4, 2019), "Actor Siddharth Expertly Trolled Akshay Kumar Over His Canadian Citizenship Tweet:Shots fired.", HuffPost, The past few days have seen a lot of interest over Akshay Kumar's ambiguous citizenship status given that he was nowhere to be found when Mumbai went to vote. While Kumar, patriot-in-chief of Bollywood, had said his Canadian citizenship was purely 'honorary,' a report by Pinkvilla found that to be untrue, forcing Kumar to release a statement. Admitting that he indeed is a Canadian citizen, Kumar put out the following statement and people doubled down on the criticism given that he had only recently interviewed Prime Minister Narendra Modi. ... Actor Siddharth, a vocal critic of the BJP government and majoritarian politics, wasted no time in drafting a not-so-sly tweet aimed at Kumar.
  3. Asia Times staff (6 May 2019). "Actor's Canadian citizenship leaves India's ruling BJP red faced". Asia Times.
  4. Luthra, Rajesh (8 May 2019), "Why Akshay Kumar's national loyalty is no private matter", Newslaundry
  5. Siddiqui, Imran Ahmed (May 10, 2019), "When foreigner Akshay Kumar was on board INS Sumitra with Modi: By raking up a three-decade-old incident involving Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister has turned the spotlight on Canadian citizen Akshay being hosted on INS Sumitra under Modi's own watch", The Telegraph, Kolkata, the Prime Minister has turned the spotlight on Canadian citizen Akshay being hosted on INS Sumitra under Modi's own watch. In February 2016, Akshay and his young son were on the navy patrol vessel alongside Modi and other dignitaries, attending the International Fleet Review (IFR) at Visakhapatnam — India's largest military exercise in 15 years. INS Sumitra is also the presidential yacht of India. This was more than three years after a September 2, 2012, report in the online newspaper Vancouver Observer had referred to Akshay's Canadian citizenship, saying it had been granted to him "within weeks" while many others waited for years.
  6. Singh, Gurpreet (February 6, 2021), "Op-ed: Canada should strip Akshay Kumar's citizenship after his stand against Rihanna: The Bollywood star has joined the backlash against people showing solidarity with protesting Indian farmers", Now Toronto
  7. Jain, Jayana (2022), Thinking Past 'Post-9/11': Home, Nation, and Trans-National Desires in Pakistani-English Novels and Hindi Films, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-367-75511-9, Akshay Kumar who, in India, is popularly known as "khiladi" implying not only the title of his most popular film (Khiladi in 1992) but also his hypermasculine body as an expert in martial arts. In a report on his recent films, Ramnath (2018) argues that Akshay Kumar "has made a remarkable journey from body building to nation building" where his hypermasculine muscular "body has always worked harder than the rest of him". Whereas in earlier films, his "chameleon"? natured cinematic characters dared to transgress national borders, his recent spate of films on nation-building and a popular interview with PM Modi underline that his star image as an international khiladi is gradually being replaced by a "sanitised" image of a national khiladi. In addition, bearing in mind Akshay Kumar's renouncement of his Indian passport in 2011, subsequent application for Canadian citizenship and, recently, re-application for an Indian passport have been a matter of public scrutiny in the Indian media (India Today Web Desk 2019), his impersonation of the migrant character Ranjit, who eventually returns to India, allows for the play of a variety of nationalisms.

Abecedare: The politics and the citizenships are not unlinked as he was granted the citizenship for political reasons by a conservative government in Canada, the reasons linked to his right-wing politics. Anyway, I will for now add the sources that specifically mention citizenship. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The scenario changed once Justin Trudeau became the Canadian PM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Ok. So now I have read all the sources listed in the Sources sub-section. Some thoughts:

  1. I believe there are enough sources and material to have a 4-5 sentence para in the lede discussing Kumar's on and off-screen persona(s), political associations etc. And the current In the media section should be possibly re-titled and re-scoped to cover these aspects or a new section added (may need to survey other well-developed actor bios to see which approach and title is preferable).
  2. The Canadian citizenship brouhaha should then be discussed in context of Kumar's persona and associations. In the current discussion though, I'll be discussing the citizenship aspect essentially in isolation, with the understanding that any language proposed would be a placeholder to be absorbed into that larger (to-be-written) para/section.
  3. So coming to the coverage of the citizenship issue itself:
    • I believe that the facts and controversy are worth 1-2 sentences in the lede and a short para in the main body.
    • However the current version is IMO significantly unbalanced in what it covers. To wit, the current version deals exclusively with the issue of whether the Canadian citizenship was possibly granted as a quid pro quo for Kumar campaigning for the Conservative government. And it gets pretty into-the-weeds of that aspect, which IMO is secondary to the main controversy.
    • The main controversy, as I see it based on the number of sources and depth of coverage, is how Kumar becoming a Canadian citizen contrasted with the image he projects both on-screen and off-screen as a hyper-(Indian)-nationalist/patriot promoting social service and government/BJP programs. The Feb, 2021 Caravan magazine cover-story does a good job providing this context, and would be a good source for writing the expanded para and section I suggested above.

In order to be concrete, here is my proposal for the last para of the lede (again with the caveta that that para will be subsequently expanded to provide better context):

In 2019, after being criticised for not voting in the Indian general elections, Kumar disclosed that he had become a Canadian citizen early in that decade. Commentators contrasted Kumar's relinquishing of his Indian citizenship with the on-screen and public persona he projected of an Indian patriot and nationalist. Some also questioned whether the fast-tracking of his Canadian citizenship application by the Conservative government was influenced by his campaigning for Stephen Harper in 2011.

The main-body can add some more details such as, Kumar's explanation of why he applied for Canadian citizenship, his 2019 claim that he had applied for Indian passport etc. And probably the last sentence in my proposal can be moved to the main-body itself, where Clement's explanation for the fast-tracking can be added.
@Shshshsh, Fowler&fowler, Krimuk2.0, and TrangaBellam: Thoughts? For now, I am mainly looking to see if we can agree of the weight to be accorded to the different aspects of Kumar's Canadian citizenship. The exact language for the lede and main-body can then be refined. Abecedare (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If the discussion is to be only about citizenship, then we cannot give his version any credence. He has told a number of tall stories over the years. That he was a dual citizen (to the Economist 2009, see citation); that he was an honorary citizen (see Pinkvilla); that he has applied for permanent residence years ago when his career was in a lean phase (see Vancouver newspaper story ca 2012 stating he received his citizenship in weeks). Also, it is best not to say "some have questioned." When the Canadian Minister of Tourism has stated something clearly.
What is currently there, which I am happy to rephrase and reduce as:Kumar has become a naturalised Canadian citizen. After the 2011 Canadian federal election, the Conservative Party government granted Canadian citizenship to Kumar by allowing him to bypass the protracted residency requirement for Canadian immigrants. A former Canadian tourism minister stated the citizenship was awarded in return for Kumar's offer of using his celebrity status to promote Canada's trade relations in India. is the most accurate, and the citations [1], [2], and [3] currently in the lead are enough. [3] is the Parliamentary Affairs Bureau of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). It trumps a piece in Caravan Magazine, given that people will object that it is leftist, or even mainstream Indian newspapers, given that they are often under pressure to publish certain versions of stories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
What happened in the Indian media in May 2019, or thereabouts, has more to do with his politics, his cosying up to the Indian political establishment, and in the face of it, the media's and the social media's accusations of hypocrisy. They obviously knew about his citizenship, but without his more public promotion of nationalism, they had nothing to hang a coat on, to make it an issue. That bit could be used as a transitional sentence to politics proper in the last paragraph described by you in 1 and 2 above, but I'm not sure it is worth wasting any breath on. I also don't think that paragraph should be diluted, indeed trivialized, by adding his gimmicky personas such as owning a soccer-team, or the gratuitous oh-how-so-normal wife and children (that seem to be bizarrely capping in lock-step the recent FAs of the younger Hollywoodians, unless of course if they are gay or have partners. I have just undertaken a nauseating survey above). Unlike the Hollywood lightweights, Akshay Kumar has done some stalwart public service by bringing the hush-hush topics of rural India into the public dialog (such as menstruation, unsafe female open defecation in the pre-dawn hours, etc). That could be added in the last paragraph, after the cold bare facts of citizenship, but preceding the borderline "Hindu majoritarian phase" of today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Abecedare, thank you for this version, which covers most of the aspects as delineated above by Fowler and is very concise and to the the point. First, I definitely agree about the weight (just as you explained in section 3), and I like the incorporation of his politics within this version. What I still don't get is whether the story became known only in 2019; Fowler's explanation to me above says that his citizenship was revealed in 2016, so I'm not sure that "Kumar disclosed that he had become" does not contradict other parts of the story/article (maybe we could alternatively say "Kumar confirmed a previously....).
Fowler, I see your point but I'm not sure we can ignore completely a subject's narrative/version in a BLP. If he's lying, and clearly he has, we should reflect that in the text by showing that his claims turned out to be false. Maybe not in the lead but certainly later in the text. Also, your version in green above seems very true to the facts and fairly avoids POV and OR, but; a) what about the politics that you wanted to combine with the citizenship story?; and b) some of the detail like "...to bypass the protracted residency requirement for Canadian immigrants" and "A former Canadian tourism minister stated..." might be too excessive for the lead and I'm not sure the former would be easily intelligible to the average reader because there isn't much context here, so "fast-tracking of his Canadian citizenship application" makes it easier, at least for me. Do you want to offer your full version once you finish your overview of the sources on politics? Shahid • Talk2me 11:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the version in green above is a quick fix, something to tide us over until the full resolution. I agree it is a little too detailed, but it was added at a time, when Kumar was denying the very fact of his changed citizenship. (You may recall the constant back and forth by IPs which the prominent Canadian mention in the lead put to rest.) What happened though was not merely fast-tracking. This wasn't seven years reduced to three, or two, or even one. Most likely, there was no previous application. Abecedare is correct to link it to Stephen Harper. But what the real motivations were for Harper we'll never know. Was it Kumar making joint appearances with Harper in the Toronto suburbs 2011, which might have enabled Harper to win an absolute majority in the Canadian parliament (in contrast to his minority government of before) as this 2012 Hindustan Times story suggested? Was it promise of Kumar officially promoting Canada in India? (We can forget the former Industry minister Tony Clement. The Official Canadian government announcement of 2010, said, "Mr. Kumar has agreed to leverage his celebrity status in India to promote Canada as a premier destination to his fans on behalf of the CTC. ... The partnership will involve promotional appearances in India and Canada, as well as familiarization trips across Canada, which will be captured for local and Indian media in video and blog posts. ) All that is now moot, as Stephen Harper lost to Justin Trudeau in October 2015, and Kumar has said recently that he hasn't been back to Canada in seven years. When Trudeau, who has openly denounced Hindu majoritarianism's unsurpassed human rights evils in Kashmir or lesser ones at the farmers' protests, visited India in 2018, Kumar was nowhere to be seen, just as Modi was nowhere to be seen for six days. Of the Bollywood superstars who did meet Trudeau (I can never remember which Khan is which) one was dressed like he was on his way to a funeral and the other to a laundromat. (See this Deccan Herald story of 2018).
Long story short. I will write something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I've had the occasion to drive most of the day and it gave me time to think and to rethink. Here is where I stand at the end of the day. I asked @Abecedare: to step in. They are not only an admin but also a superb content contributor. This is not a subject I have great interest in, although I love the politics bit, the intrigues, and so forth. I have collected all the sources. They are in two places, in the section on politics above, and in the citizenship section. Abecedare has taken a look at the citizenship sources. I feel they will do a better job of doing the whole package. They know Wikipedia rules much better than I do (i.e. BLP etc) and they are a neutral presence bringing a fresh pair of eyes to the topic. It is only fair then that Abecedare have the predominant say in shaping the final paragraph. So, I will make a proposal, but will then bow out after that.
The other thing is that I have been meaning to take a wikibreak for months, and it seems I keep getting involved in issues that are not of primary importance to me, which is not a good thing.
I do need to start that Wikibreak. So, I will be delighted if Abecedare and @Shshshsh: who is also a superb content contributor will work out some happy medium thereafter.
Thanks both for your valuable inputs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you Fowler, looking forward to your proposal. Your detailed explanation to me above changed the entire rhythm of the discussion here, making it altogether more matter-of-fact and pacifying all the useless hostility, and I thank you for that. Interestingly, I mostly edit Bollywood-related articles but I know very little about actors' off-screen endeavors, such as the current bulk of information re Kumar, so I think your proposal and Abecedare's say will be very a good go. I'll be here to offer my input of course. Shahid • Talk2me 10:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Shshshsh: Unfortunately, I seemed to have showed no signs of motivation for drafting that paragraph thus far, and it does not look like I will before I further restrict my Wiki activities during my Wikibreak. So, with many apologies to you and to @Abecedare:, may I request you both to draft that paragraph? Whatever version you come up with will have my support. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: No problem Fowler, I understand that. I happen to be busy in real life too. I will let Abecedare come up with a final version of it and like youself will give it my full support. I'm sure Abecedare will be back in a few days. Shahid • Talk2me 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

Keshavjha4434 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Akshay Kumar Is An Indian Actor
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

Remove redirect to "Selfiee (upcoming film)". Markovchained (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Canadian actor?

I am aware of the section above and I've quickly scanned through it— but I am not sure what to make of the lengthy diatribes. I still have to note the absurdity just of the "short description" and perhaps the first sentence of this article—as Fowler notes elsewhere—"[we] mention the place(s) associated with a person's notability, not the one mentioned in their passport." Akshay is notable as an Indian Hindi-language film actor, someone who was born is India, spent the majority of his life and career in India. His passport does seem to be a hot topic among those who disagree with his politics and perhaps want to dispute his right to comment on Indian politics as a non-citizen of India. To call him a "Canadian actor of Indian origin" based on that is simply laughable. Can we get an RfC on this if consensus through discussion is not possible? regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 16:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind the RfC, looks like something like that already happened (aborted?) above. Is there even any consensus for the edit noticed installed here with a link to ET? Who agreed to it? Where? Is anyone other than Fowler pushing this? If @Shshshsh: and Krimuk 2.0 already are of one opinion and agree that the short description shouldn't say Canadian or whatever, just change that. One person shouldn't be able to force their preferred version without any support? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the short description. As you suggest, per WP policy it should be, "Bollywood actor, etc." I have changed it to that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
As for the lead and the rest of the article, we are waiting for admin @Abecedare: to formulate the sentences. I believe @Shshshsh:, Abecedare, and I agree that the citizenship and the controversy around it are notable enough for a mention in the lead. I don't know that anyone else has been a part of the discussion. Once rephrased, we plan to discuss the actor's "poster boy" status for Hindu nationalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, and sure, all that might warrant a mention somewhere. Other than the short description, also take a closer look at the first sentence. How did we get to "Indian-born Canadian actor" based on political sources discussing his citizenship? India is the 'place associated with his notability', in every way. The first mention of Canada would go with the rest of the controversy paragraph—can you get that off the first sentence? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@TryKid: I'm too busy, sorry for the late reply. Look, I can totally understand why you're bothered by this issue. I raised a similar concern a few years back. But we need to reflect reality fairly. @Fowler&fowler: Yes, of course we agree on its notability in the lead, and as I said previously, I think you and Abecedare are the best combination for a good final version of it (politics included), which I will be happy to support. If I'm not mistaken, Abecedare has already offered above a version where the political part is incorporated, but as you said let's wait for his return as he hasn't been around for quite some time. Shahid • Talk2me 22:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we should wait for Abecedare's return. Narendra Modi, Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen, Roseanne Barr, Johnny Depp, not to mention Arnold, Angelina, Sean Penn are all BLPs, but we don't mince words discussing their unsavory histories; so why are Bollywood actors, who except for a handful such as Naseeruddin Shah, Smita Patil and Om Puri and the last two are dead. have lately not risen to a level of acting higher than second-rate American TV actors, be given a special dispensation? I think it is best for admin Abecedare to formulate this upon his return. The text has been in place for a number of years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Apologies: "his return" --> "their return" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Abecedare goes by "he". I have to say that recently there have been some very strong talents in India. The digital platforms in particular opened doors to many terrific actors who a decade ago wouldn't have had a chance. Also, you went almost 40 years back to mention three great actors, but did not mention their frequent collaborator Shabana Azmi (not sure if you forgot or maybe just not as fond of her). The reason I'm mentioning her is because I want to start working on her article when I have more time; this would be a dream project. Sorry, got distracted a little (you just have to start talking about actors and the industry, and I get carried away). Shahid • Talk2me 12:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Nothing against her. She's a very good actress, but the three I mentioned are/were outstanding in my view.
We did watch some digital stuff during the pandemic. There was a docudrama on the Delhi gangrape that was excellent. There is one of four women in Mumbai, but their world lies outside the India of my interest (i.e. people from privileged backgrounded, educated abroad, who rolls their eyes (which is not really a facial expression of Indian culture, only perhaps of their culture of mimicry)).
You are supposed to get carried away if you are a film buff. You should absolutely work on her article. There is the added bonus of her real-life connections to Urdu poetry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
There is also Dilip Kumar whom I forgot. Although often grouped with Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand, he was in a class well above theirs. Here is Shabana Azmi (I think) introducing Dilip Kumar, in turn introducing Noor Jehan who was on a return visit to Bombay. Where in contemporary Bollywood will you see genuine feelings being shown in an interaction such as the one between Dilip and Noorjehan in that link? His 100th birth anniversary came and went last week, with a with some commemoration, but not measuring up to his stature, again in my view. He definitely deserves an FA more than anyone else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I'm totally with you about Shah, Puri and Patil. Yes, you saw Delhi Crime, with Shefali Shah, a very strong performer exactly the kind of which I referred to when I spoke about "terrific actors who a decade ago wouldn't have had a chance". You aptly described the women from the social milieu portrayed in Bombay Begums, which I'm not interested to watch either.
Obviously Dilip is in a league of his own; he is unmatched even by today's standards (or maybe not "even" considering some of the recent material, but today's acting is much more natural and he was a revolutionary in this regard), and indeed, doesn't get the respect he deserves. Few actors in those years were as good as Kumar (great female stars included Nargis, Waheeda Rehman, and Nutan).
Thank you for sharing this link with the legendary Noorjehan. A moment to remember. They acted together in Jugnu, directed by her husband, shortly before she moved to Pakistan. The movie was among the early hits that shot him to fame. I often listen to her rendition of "Hamari Sanson Mein Aaj Tak Woh" (which was later copied into "Tumhari Nazron Mein" for the 1992 Hindi film Kal Ki Awaaz). She sang some tremendous songs composed by Naushad, my favourite being "Aaja Meri Barbaad" from the movie Anmol Ghadi.
Kapoor though was quite a good filmmaker when he was at his best (especially in his early collaborations with Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, such as Awaara), although the great ones in Hindi cinema of those years were Bimal Roy and Guru Dutt. Shahid • Talk2me 16:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh yes I did get carried away. We're gonna be driven out of here soon. :) Shahid • Talk2me 16:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"Bade Miyan Chote Miyan 2 (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bade Miyan Chote Miyan 2 (film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3 § Bade Miyan Chote Miyan 2 (film) until a consensus is reached. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 11:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Naturalised"

Is the word "naturalised" that important to stress upon the article's lead paragraph? Why can't it simply be India-born Canadian actor? I think this way it looks more neat. Rejoy2003(talk) 18:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like 'naturalised' is part of the consensus. You can check the t/p archives, tons of discussion there. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

Akshay kumar has relinquished the canadian citizenship and is back as a citizen of India announced by him on the 15th of August 2023 VibhuVerma (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiteshTALK 07:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023 (2)

Change birth place from Amritsar,Punjab, India to Delhi, India Sahilgng (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done "Amritsar, Punjab, India" is sourced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Check his official twitter handle where he has posted his citizenship document and then make necessary changes. Sahilgng (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship during career?

@Fowler&fowler: what do I make of this explanation of yours? I don't see any material supporting your claim at MOS:LEAD (maybe it's somewhere in the linked pages), and it is kinda nonsensical. I remind you of your edit at Siddharth Varadarajan again, who has been an American citizen for much of, or all of his career, and is one to this day as far as I know. We don't say he's an American editor of Indian "news sites", do we? Akshay having a Canadian or Jamaican or whatever citizenship is irrelevant when whatever career excellence and audience he has had has been in India. It's only relevance seems to be related to his publicly aired political views or associations, already documented at excessive length in the last paragraph. Can you please stop trying to stuff it in the first sentence? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that he's isn't a Canadian citizen anymore, the edit notice on this talk page should be removed, or at least modified.
Regarding the Vardarajan edit, I'll quote myself from months ago. as Fowler notes elsewhere—"[we] mention the place(s) associated with a person's notability, not the one mentioned in their passport." Is there even an iota of doubt that the country associated with Akshay's notability is India? Why the insistence on including the country (previously) mentioned in his country in the first sentence then? Fowler, please take your own advice and stop trying to force yourself on the page. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
MOS:CITIZEN is what you're looking for in terms of guidance on this. The example that's probably closest to what was happening here is Schwarzenegger, where he's noted as both Austrian and American in the lead, and it's specifically called out because of the dual citizenship. With Kumar renouncing the Canadian citizenship, it's certainly nothing that's warranted for the first sentence and it gets a bit more iffy for the intro paragraph, but everything around it probably does warrant a mention in the lead because of the coverage around it. Phrasing for that is a bit tricky, maybe mentioning the years he was a Canadian citizen and leave it at that for the lead? Ravensfire (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
where he's noted as both Austrian and American in the lead, and it's specifically called out because of the dual citizenship - Hi @Ravensfire - that's not exactly the case. From my understanding, Schwarzenegger falls more inline with likes of Peter Lorre like what user @TryKid said. In regards to politicians in America of foreign birth, the likes of Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright are not described as being "German American" or "Czech American" respectively. In contrast, Schwarzenegger was born in Austria and first gained notability as an Austrian, representing the country in bodybuilding/weightlifting. He then moved to America and gained notability as an actor there, before becoming a dual citizen in 1983 and later a governor of California. In his case, he achieved notability in both Austria and America, lived in both countries, and is a dual citizen. That doesn't seem comparable to Kumar's situation. He held sole Canadian citizenship for a time because of Indian laws, and that is why he was listed as solely "Canadian". But that isn't the case anymore, and even as a Canadian citizen who became an Indian citizen again, his life and career are pretty much all in India, with Canada being more of a footnote. Honestly, we could just omit nationality from the lede all together like the consensus on Tina Turner, who had many recurring discussions because she was an American citizen, born and raised in the U.S until the last 10 years of her 83 year life. But that's beyond the point.
Though I understand Wikipedia can sometimes be frustratingly inconsistent and things that go against general guidelines might be allowed if the user talk page consensus allows it, there are lots of notable pages who omit any mention of a subject's dual or even triple citizenship as it is not relevant to their notability. He is an Indian citizen again and still notable almost entirely in the Indian entertainment industry. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Clear Looking Glass, I was looking for the closest of the examples listed in on that page. Completely agree it's not a perfect example (or even a really good example), but it's better than nothing. I like the Tina Turner example, interesting that her infobox lists both US and Swiss citizenship, but she basically lived in Switzerland for quite some time before the citizenship shift and went through the normal naturalization process for Switzerland. Rather different circumstances than here. As the discussion has continued, the thoughtful comments from several here are persuasive about the relative WP:WEIGHT to mentioning anything Canada related in the lead or infobox. Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
We can say he’s an actor and film producer in Hindi cinema. (In other words leave the citizenship bit, the politically intermixed and extraordinary circumstances of his grant of Canadian citizenship by Steven Harper’s Conservative Canadian government, his less than cogent or transparent explanations of those circumstances or even of his status for pretty much the duration of the period during which he also became a poster boy for Hindu nationalism—to the last paragraph.) I wonder what happened to the long discussions we had about including something about his in-your-face promotion of Hindu heroes and themes in his movies in the very period during which he had promised the Canadians that he would sell Canada in India, at least according to Canadian sources. Most likely that gig went out the window when Justin Trudeau began to wield power. All those things don’t instantly become water under the encyclopedic bridge with the posting of a blurry picture on Twitter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
You keep talking about his political associations, which are already noted at length in the last paragraph along with his citizenship woes. I did not and am not asking for any change there—as with last time, my concern is with the contents of the first sentence or first paragraph, where you have enforced a mention of Canada for months, contrary to your own policy declaration on another page. The first paragraph is a concise summary of the most important facts about the person—we have no reason to leave out "Indian" for an Indian citizen born in India notable for working in an Indian film industry, or mention "Canadian" for the same person for having held Canadian citizenship for a decade a half in the middle of his life without having done much of note there.
@Ravensfire:, I'm not sure Schwarzenegger is the right person to compare here—he was born in Austria, emigrated to America and worked in the film industry there. Akshay Kumar is someone who was born in India, worked in an Indian film industry, left for Canada for sometime, did nothing much of note there, and then came back to work in Indian films again. Everything of note regarding his professional career has to do with India, and has no relation to Canada. He did not have any kind of career in Canada—his Canadian citizenship is only brought up in relation to his politics, which is more than sufficiently noted in the last paragraph—it is nothing significant enough to be in the first sentence. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 16:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
He didn’t leave for Canada. He spent no time there as a resident let alone the five years required of legal permanent residents. That’s the part of the notability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Please don’t accuse me of imposing anything. I’m the one who found the sources and I believe @Shshshsh: was on board with most of the phrasing of the third paragraph.
If you make accusations about my motives again TryKid I will be posting on the user talk pages of administrators
[[Hindi cinem
Bottom line: I said “actor and producer working in
Hindi cinema” without any mention of nationality in the lead first paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
My impression was that you want to retain a mention of Canada in the *first* paragraph, or the first sentence itself, seeing that you inserted it here few hours ago, and appeared to be in favour of a mention of Canada in the first paragraph in a discussion few years ago, and also in the last discussion 7 months ago. Nevermind any other paragraph of the lede or any other issue, I don't think I've expressed any interest in changing anything else about article, other than first paragraph and the short introduction, either in my first thread or this one. The difference with the Varadarajan situation now is of course that Akshay has his Indian citizenship back—leaving out a mention of India would not be appropriate. I am in favor of a simple "Indian actor" in the first paragraph, leaving the midlife citizenship controversy for later paragraphs of the lead, i.e. the state of things before your edit few hours ago. Will that not be the best course of action?
I apologise for being too forceful and aggressive in my messages. The situation here is a bit complex, I should have been more considerate. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
There is little chance that it will happen by the waving of a blurred picture on Twitter reported by the wide-eyed, semantically spineless, Indian media on (surprise surprise) the very day and hour it was announced. He’s told too many unreliable tales before (that he had dual citizenship, to wit). So why should this be believed? Even if it is, what has changed since yesterday? He was an actor with a what you might call a switched citizenship disorder, metaphorically speaking. Now he has a switched and switched back citizenship disorder. Indian is a much poorer description of his changeable status than what I have added now. How many people are there in India who have done this? There are people in India who have lived in India all their lives of many decades, but just happened to be born to parents of the wrong religion. They are waiting for their first Indian citizenship.
When the newspapers of record or media of record of Canada, whose citizen he was yesterday have reported it and given it notability we can discuss it again. Meanwhile you are welcome to query WP:RS/N if a cub reporter-of-the-moment of the Hindustan Times is more reliable encyclopedically, than the parliamentary affairs correspondent of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
So summing up: For a man with a complicated citizenship status, it is best to go with, “… is an actor and producer of Hindi films working in India,”
in the lead sentence and punt a more detailed description to the info box and the last lead paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
regarding this: Fowler&fowler, Shahid did weigh in, years ago, and months ago too, and you repeatedly opposed his view that a simple mention of India will suffice. the other participants on the current discussion also make clear their view that Canada doesn't need a mention, in accordance with its relative weight in the topic. I'm also sick of your repeated stonewalling and threats to me, as you had threatened Shahid previously. contact whoever you want. I'm reverting your edit. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
No there is no reason to mention Canada in the first paragraph Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
But no reason to mention the Indian citizenship either Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@TryKid, see my comment slightly above - agree in general with your points here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
PS ie we phrase the first sentence just as we do in Vardarajan where we say “journalist working in India” or some such. No Indian or Canadian adjective appears in the lead paragraph. It appears in the info box and in Kumar’s case—because of the notability attached to it—in the last lead paragraph. It may be that ten years down the road his excursion into Canadian-ship will become an insignificant blip but it hasn’t happened yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Citizenship/nationality descriptives should be no more than simplistic mentions, i.e., which do not take away from the person's work (see for e.g. Albert Einstein). In this case the major work is with films and that is which (i.e. the films of note) should find mention in the lead para. That he held Canadian citizenship for a period might be of interest as a subtopic but is not defining enough to merit inclusion in the lead paragraph (may be later in the lead or perhaps is best served within the body), Britannica for instance does not even mention this tidbit at all. Gotitbro (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Yang Chen-Ning is another notable case where the person relinquished and then regained their original citizenship. Gotitbro (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akshay_Kumar/Archive_2&oldid=1176346734"