Talk:Raees (2017 film)

In these edits I removed content about the film addressing the prohibition of alcohol, drugs and prostitution as the content wasn't found in the source that followed the statement. Further, the original version on 16 July 2015 didn't say anything specific about what type of prohibition the film criticizes, and further details were added a day later without an improvement of the reference.

Complicating issues, recent news articles dated 16-17 February 2016 [1][2][3][4] appear to have copied the same language in this 3 February 2016 version of the article. (Note the change of "criticizes" to "criticises" and the removal of "cruel and clever":

"The film is set in 1980s Gujarat. It tells the story of the eponymous bootlegger Raees Khan (Shah Rukh Khan) whose business is highly challenged and eventually thwarted by a police officer (Nawazuddin Siddiqui). The film criticises the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution, and drugs in Gujarat."

This highly suggests that some of the trades are copying from Wikipedia without proper attribution (plagiarism!) and haven't done any actual research or proper reporting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

{Edit semi-protected}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by UthpalaDL (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Though It was Slated to Release on Eid Along with Sultan of Megastar Salman Khan ,But after Dilwale Lost to Bajirao Mastani and Mega Flop Fan Lost to the Mowgli of The Jungle Book,Small Star Srk wont dare to clash with Megastar Khan. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Rang0403 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: The changes you are proposing don't come close to tone appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an academic resource, not a snarky personal blog. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

^[1]

Raees release date has been postponed to 26 January 2017 ,confirmed by producer Ritesh sidhwani today on 3rd may 2016 Here's the link http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/shah-rukh-s-raees-salman-s-sultan-won-t-clash-on-eid-because/story-bfUCTZCQS9mwcDFqDetm6K.html Abanfarooqui (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

RAEES release date is showing as 1 july 2016 whereas it has been postponed to 26 january 2017 as confirmed by producers ritesh sidhwani and farhan akhtar and shahrukh khan in a press statement.^[1]

Abanfarooqui (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Release Date 26 January 2017 1.23.158.214 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

112.134.1.80 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Raees (film). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Imtiaz bahar (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: as you have not made a request. Requests should be in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please change Distributed By from Eros International to Red Chillies Entertainment.

RedChilliesEnt (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: Got references? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted reference to Abdul Latif as the makers of the film time and again said that their film is peace of fictional work. Filmipaagal (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: Though the existing reference is a bit rumor-y, India Times says that it's based on Abdul Latif. Do you have anything that says concretely that the film is not based on Abdul Latif? It's perfectly common for a work of fiction to be based on, or inspired by, real people. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just to help out here, there was a discussion thread on Hcns' talk page between them and Musicwithoutlyrics. I think it's more suitable to address that discussion here. It's a bit odd to shift the burden to proving that something isn't a fact. Many of the sources reporting on this initially seemed to attribute the information as rumor, or using tip-toe language like "reportedly". IndiaToday: "Reportedly the inspiration". Firstpost says "As per reports, SRK's role was inspired by Abdul Latif."

But Indian Express has said "The movie is based on the life of criminal Abdul Latif". India Times has also described it as "Based on the life of Gujrat's crime-lord Abdul Latif". IBT said "Raees is apparently based on the real story of late alleged criminal Abdul Latif" and then expands with information about Latif's son being used as a consultant, which was based on information from DNA. This piece from Firstpost says that the character is inspired by Latif, but the film is fictional. That seems believable. As for how to present the information, "inspired by" seems to be the correct language, if presented properly. The Scroll.in source that popped up recently isn't great. I believe the jury is still out on whether or not Scroll can be considered a reliable source. Anyway, they don't make it clear who specifically has denied that the film has anything to do with Latif. It's also an odd position when considering the reports that Latif's son was a consultant. Further, the Scroll language is somewhat ambiguous. A film character can be inspired by a person without the resulting film being based on that person's life. A source other than Scroll that explains the denial would be better.

In the interim, saying that the film is based on the life of Latif is probably not a great choice. Maybe saying that "the character of Raees was reportedly inspired by bootlegger Latif", along with "but the filmmakers have denied that the film is based on Latif's life"? Something along those lines seems appropriate. I'll leave you to figure out what those nuances are. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Actually in the trailer launch video of the film on Youtube, which I saw on 7th December, the director Rahul Dholakia and co-producer Ritesh Sidhwani in presence of the cast members, Shah Rukh Khan and Nawazuddin Siddiqui denied all the reports of the film being based on Latif when questioned by one of the TV reporters, but their answers were unclear to a certain extent. But here all We need is reliable source/s means from e-papers, actually from reliable publishers, but got no sources till now, the opposite is what We got. I reverted Musicwithoutlyrics's edits for deleting the lines from the article "pinned" with reliable sources (Top section and Controversy section where Latif's name is mentioned) for that purpose as well as replied Him/Her in talk page too. Now, He/She provided one source from a start-up portal article publishing website with only a single phrase of "denial by filmmakers" in it. I think keeping the lines and sources will be better till We get more reliable sources. Thanks. Hcns (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's also quite possible that they're downplaying the relationship to Latif since legal issues (according to sources) may have been raised by Latif's son. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, same what I thought. Actually, We need Musicwithoutlyrics to join this discussion as He/She raised this topic, and after that typed those lines along with the citation. Hcns (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure they could be downplaying it. But until it is legally proven, I don't think that any source - whether it bd DNA or Indian Express or anyone else can be considered the authority of whether or not it is true. That's why I think that it's okay to put it as people say it's based on it, but the filmmakers have denied it. I don't know why Scroll is a less reliable source than DNA or Indian Express - just because they've been around longer? I'm not sure if you guys live in India or not, but there is tons of evidence that the Indian media (like much of the world as seen after the US election) is completely unreliable and unprofessional when it comes to journalism. I'm only pointing this out because "just because they have said it" doesn't mean it's true, especially when even they have not given any evidence as to "why" they have said it. My point being - one news source reports something, and the rest just regurgitate it without cross checking the facts. It's out job not to take things at face value but to critically assess the validity of claims. None of those articles have "proven" that the film is based on Abdul Latif. In fact, some of them could even disprove it - the character apparently owns brothels and even Abdul Latif's son has claimed that is not true. That's why I really think it's okay to put it's said to be based on, but the filmmakers deny it. :) Just my opinion. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicwithoutlyrics (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

remove the conterversy paragraph 202.65.144.154 (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: Please provide a valid reason for removing paragraphs worth of sourced content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Raees 200cr Sportsmiah88 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done - Please provide references to support this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please change the box office collections from Rs.215 crore to Rs.255 crore.^[1] 117.241.121.133 (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: Koimoi is not considered a reliable source for financials, per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Raees WORLDWIDE BOX OFFICE IS NOW 295 INR CRORE

REFERENCE: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/raees-box-office-collection-day-13-shah-rukh-khan-film-4510866/ Smokeydogg777 (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

120.138.115.230 (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC) raees 302 croreReply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Shimlaites: Hi! What does 'initial release' mean? What's the valid explanation of this edit? Why have you removed the source which says, "Raees will release in Pakistan, but we'll have to wait for it...", why did you say it a "misleading line"? The film was already banned in Pakistan, but this source proves that there was 'a chance' for film to be released in Pakistan. The 'banning decision' was made final later on review by CBFC Pakistan. What does this mean in whole? Thanks! M. Billoo 23:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

An " initial release" means that a film has already released in some capacity, maybe on few screens or in selected cities, which didn't happen in this case. You added a media speculation in the first line, which said that film will release in Pakistan. Now we do know that film will not release in Pakistan coz it has been banned by a govt body. No point of adding a media speculation and it was never an initial release. Shimlaites (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Shimlaites: 'Initial release' means 'first release' or 'original release', i.e. for Raees, 25 January 2017. Film was already banned in Pakistan, and if mentioning this 'ban' sentence, then it should also be told that why it is banned (the reason is given) and since when (but this is not given, film was already banned but it has been reported 13 days later?!), and here in this case is that source which you say 'media speculation'. Hope this helps. M. Billoo 08:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Come again? I didn't get what you meant by that, use bullets please. This para that we are discussing is about release and ban "in Pakistan". The film never had an "initial release in Pakistan". There were only media speculations that the film might release in Pakistan. Those speculations are trivial in the light of the ban by a state body and need not be mentioned. Shimlaites (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Shimlaites: 'Initial Release' means its first and original release, which was worldwide excluding Pakistan due to already ban there.

• But why it was banned there?
• Since when it was banned there?
• Why CBFC Pakistan decided to ban film after its 'initial release', means 'worldwide release on 25 Jan 2017'?

The answers of these questions are present in that reference link, which I added but you removed. These answers should be summarized there in one para, or others might think that the film was banned in Pakistan after 13 days of its 'worldwide release', which they shouldn't because film has never released there.

This 'confusion' should be cleared, hope it helps. M. Billoo 14:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

We are just discussing that one para in the 'Controversy' section, not the whole article and that para is about "release in Pakistan" only, not the worldwide release of the film. The film did not have an "initial release" in Pakistan, so there is no need to mention 'initial release' part. Shimlaites (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Shimlaites: Again you didn't understood. OK, let me write it as, "It was reported that the film would also release in Pakistan, after its worldwide release,<first reference> but then it was banned by CBFC Pakistan on 7 February 2017 due to......<second reference>" Hope you understand now, thanks! M. Billoo 15:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to mention, "It was reported that the film would also release in Pakistan..." coz it is trivial, they are media speculations, not relevant. Media speculations are of no real value on the movie's article. Shimlaites (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Shimlaites: Please maintain message order by putting ":", +1 from last.

In reply, why the film had travelled to CBFC Pak? The film was already banned there due to tensions created after Uri attack, then how CBFC Pak reviewed it? If this would the film having no cast or crew from Pakistan, then obviously this whole paragraph would not be here.

But, due to the presence of Pak actress Mahira Khan, there is need to explain (in summarized form). The one you are continuously saying 'media speculations' are not only speculations, because the film has been reviewed by CBFC Pak as it was there for release, not only for being 'banned'. It is not of little importance. Hope it helps, thanks! M. Billoo 17:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article is not about India-Pak relations, Mahira Khan, Uri attacks or CBFC. Its about a film called 'Raees'. In the controversy section, their is a mention of the ban on the film in Pakistan. The ban on the film has nothing to do with India-Pak relations, Mahira Khan or Uri attacks, it happened because Pak's CBFC didn't approve of it and that has been clearly mentioned in that section. There is no need to make this page more about other trivial topics than the film. Shimlaites (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Shimlaites: Why are you not maintaining your replies with ":"? Since start of this talk, I am asking the following questions, and need their answer on Raees film article:

• Why it was banned in Pakistan? (answered here)
• Since when it was banned there? (not answered here)
• Why Pak CBFC decided to ban film after its 25 Jan 2017? (partially answered here)

But you are changing the discussion. It's not a minor talk, it is related to "India-Pak relations, Mahira Khan or Uri attacks". The point should be 'clear and complete', Thanks! M. Billoo 18:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think you are confusing Wikipedia articles with investigative pieces. We write facts here, not POVs or speculations. Since when it is banned? Since 6th Feb. Why Pak decided to ban it on that date and not earlier or later? No answer given by them. A film may release on different dates in different countries, its a very normal thing. Ban on Raees has nothing to do with blanket ban. Stop trying to add political insinuations. A film was banned by a country because they found the content objectionable, simple. There is no need to add trivia and media speculations. Shimlaites (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

And BTW, if a film has been banned by the censor board of a country, it means that the film was never released in the first place, it is implied, you do not have to add unnecessary media speculations or POVs for that. Shimlaites (talk)€

@Shimlaites: The one who does not understand the arrangement of messages in a talk page, how understands about arranging the text-flow in an article!? Sorry to say but may be I should leave talking here, because I don't think I was talking to someone who is helpful.

The film was already banned there since its 'initial release'. Then, Govt. of Pak allowed screening of Indian films, and passed Kaabil & Ae Dil Hai Mushkil, but didn't pass Raees which missed its chance of release in Pak. So, the film is banned there since 25 Jan 2017, with a little lift on 'permission' but not on 'screening'. A point should be 'clear and complete', then why 'politics' or 'POVs' came in between? What do you mean by "No answer given by them"? You're might be talking about facts here, but like to add your 'POVs' everywhere. Thanks! M. Billoo 11:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The film was not banned since its 'initial release', it was banned on the 6th, before that it was going through pre-release formalities that every film goes through. Shimlaites (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Comment - I don't understand this dispute. If the issue is about this edit, there's no mention in this source that the film was planned for release in Pakistan. The photo caption suggests that there were rumours about a Pakistan release. What we do know, is that the film was banned in Pakistan, and the simplest way to express this is: "The film was banned in Pakistan". Can we move on, please? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Cyphoidbomb: Hi Admin! Thank you for always being helpful, but I was talking about this link. Thanks again! M. Billoo 00:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@M.Billoo2000: That reference doesn't say that there are or were plans to release it in Pakistan. It makes a speculative assertion, predicting that it is only a matter of time that the film is released in Pakistan. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

How can we cite a reference of a news report published in a reliable newspaper ? ❤ TrendSPLEND ^✉ 21:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@TrendSPLEND: Template:Cite news. The template is built into the edit window. Pull down "cite", then select the template. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Re: this edit of mine, I'm not sure what happened in the edits preceding, but the range disappeared in favor of a single value, and nobody bothered to explain. Now it might be reasonable to change it to a single value because there are sources more current then the Bollywood Hungama one, but nobody explained their rationale, so I had to restore it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please edit the worldwide gross collection as of Feb 6th as INR 304crCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref></ref> 61.12.75.209 (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Raees doesn't mean wealthy. Raees means President. Thank you Shujathalikhan (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are u Indian or have Indian dictionary that u don't agree to the meaning coz the meaning is according to the movie's script Ananya Shroff (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why are the gross numbers being cherry-picked? The number is coming from two sources - source A and source B. Both of them include both domestic and overseas and give us a total. But we're taking the domestic from one and the overseas from the other, and that's cherry-picking. The sources almost certainly have different methodologies for coming up with the number and we're now combining the two. Really folks, we should be picking just one and using not, not artificially trying to get a higher number than a source gives. Ravensfire (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This sort of thing bugs me as well. Especially when we have to additionally use a USD$ figure and do the currency exchange. I would imagine @Maestro2016: worked on these figures. I think this needs to be discussed, but I'm not sure what the best open forum for this would be. WT:ICTF gets super-low participation unless you personally invite everybody from the project. Maybe WikiProject Film would be a better place. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's probably a good spot. I'll get it started and leave a pointer on the ICTF page as well. Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Using multiple sources for film gross figures. Ravensfire (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

But... back to the question at hand. What bothers more here is that the BOI source does have both national and overseas numbers. This feels like artificially inflating the numbers to me. Please don't remove the {{vn}} tag until there's at least some consensus here. Ravensfire (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added the gross a while back, before Cyphoidbomb raised concerns about combining figures. While I still maintain that it should be acceptable to WP:CALC/add together domestic and overseas figures (due to domestic and overseas generally having differing methodologies), an exception would be when both sources give contradicting figures for both domestic and overseas, which seems to be the case here. In which case, it might be better to give the overall figure from either or both sources. Maestro2016 (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Majumdar takes him to an isolated place and shoots him. As Raees is shot on, he remembers a flashback of his mother's teachings, his struggle in liquor trade and memories with Aasiya. He falls down dead and Majumdar and his team drive away leaving him dead. 2405:204:E400:114A:519A:BEF:842D:D507 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done Grammar issues aside, the flashback content has been added. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The budget of Raees in 87 crores you can check the link https://www.jackace.in/2017/01/Raees-Budget-Screens-And-Day-Wise-Box-Office-Collection.html Raman raina (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: @Raman raina: Jackace.in is not considered a reliable source. As a general rule, it is not wise to swallow whatever random blogs/portals say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone help me in re-writing the box office data? PK743 (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why?? Ananya Shroff (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply