Talk:A. R. Rahman

Template:Film Music

Artistic merits of his works

Thanks for the in Bold textformative entry. One point. This article seems to express a contested opinion about the artistic merits of his works. Opinions on the Wikipedia should be attributed to somebody of relevance. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, specifically the section on creative works. --Robert Merkel 05:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rahman's conversion into Islam

The article says his family converted to Islam post his father's death when his mother remarried to a Muslim. However there is no reference for this provided. As far as my knowledge goes, one of Rahman's close relatives fell sick and a Sufi saint apparently cured that person and impressed by the Sufi Saint, and as an act of gratitude, the family changed religion. Precambrian84 (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

His mother, who raised him since age 9, was from a Muslim family. See interview at [1]--ISKapoor (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

His religion has been edited to be Sufism instead of Islam. Sufism is the spiritual dimension of Islam and is not a religion in its own right. Furthermore, the reference indicates that he is observant of the rituals of orthodox Islam such as prayer and Hajj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.50.121 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He has described himself as a Sufi Muslim so I think for information, its inclusion is warranted. Clubover (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Text was changed to Sufi Islam. This is important because there is Sufism is not a religion in it's own right but a part of orthodox Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.50.121 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Sufi Islam". Also, lots of non-Muslims adhere to some form of Sufism, but they may not be identified as Muslims. Rahman on the other hand is a self-identified Muslim. Implying that he's a "Sufist" gives the impression that he may not be a Muslim. Hence the implication of him "converting to Sufism" is unnecessary.

Just wish to check, were all of his sisters converted to Islam? I think one did not convert (G.V. Prakash's mother) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckannan90 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

Please provide sources of reference wherever possible. Splashprince 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Far greater effort can be put into referencing. Better sources of reference than just Internet websites (such as books or academic journals or reputable newspaper articles) can be found to substantiate information regarding this artist. AppleJuggler 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A start would be searching through www.scholar.google.com. See the following: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A.R.+Rahman+music&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=. AppleJuggler 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments for action

The following paragraph seems extremely biased and does not seem to have a strong backing evidence to it:

"In fact Ilayaraaja made Tamil people (who were listening Hindi songs) to listen Tamil Songs, where as A. R. Rahman made Hindi people(who were listening Hindi songs) to listen Tamil Songs. Another point worth noting is that while Ilayaraaja brought western music in Indian Instruments, A. R. Rahman pioneered the art of composing Indian classical Carnatic and Hindustani Music and using western Instruments to play those tunes"

As pointed out by the anonymous editor above, the statement regarding AR Rahman pioneering the art of composing Indian classical music with Western instruments, and its comparison with the work of Ilaiyaraja is suspect and unsubstantiated. Unless this can be supported by evidence, I believe this comment should be removed. Splashprince 13:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is actually a fact. It is also a fact that sales of Hindi Cinema Cassattes dipped greatly in Tamil Nadu after Ilayaraja's entry into Tamil Cinema (in 1980s only Hindi cassattes were selling only in CHennai). Every one knows that ARRahman is the first Tamil (nor non-Hindi music director to rule Bollywood. The second is hard to prove with references but any one who knows the composition of songs like இளைய நிலா பொழிகிறது and கண்ணோடு காண்பதெல்லாம் நில்ல் agree with that.  Doctor Bruno  03:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rahman's ethnicity

The article says Rahman is Tamilian. It is widely understood that he is in fact Malayalee. Can somebody confirm this ?

-- Um, im pretty much certain hes Tamil. His dad just worked in the Malayalam film industry, as many tamils have done in the past. Also, as far as I know it is widely understood that Rahman is in fact Tamil (not mallu). --

--Well,it is a fact that he is tamil...because he said it in an interview in a telugu channel.He does not know malyalam except for his father that to because he worked in that industry. Moreover he is a mudhaliar by birth.Mudhaliars are a tamil caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.100 (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He is a malayalee, born and brought up in Kerala. He is married to Malayalam actor Rehman's Wife's sister. His first film was Yodha in Malayala, but the first film released was Roja. In yodha his name as Music Director was Dileep. His mother and sisters still talk Malayalam.

He is NOT a malayalee. He is a tamilian by birth. His father worked for Malayalam Industry. His first film was also a telugu movie [as stated by himself in an Interview], but Roja preceded in release. In the award ceremony, he said "I want to say something in Tamil, 'Ellapugazhum Iraivanuke..!'" which means All credits go to God [Allah].

Merge

Most articles written by Indians will have these same problems. Indians tend to write their opinion and expect the same of others. Claims that sound like the one you pointed out above are very common. It is merely a way of conv eying the impact of A.R's influence on Indian music consumers. This is how we are taught in school. It is a rare Indian who can put aside opinion and state facts as they stand. Here I offer just an explanation. Being Indian myself, I don't really see a solution to this.

Personal information of Rahman

Taken from Gopal's ARR page. Should this updated further, or left alone? Should this even be in at all? Also need to verify on which of the sisters is Rehana, the music director. unni 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Can anyone verify whether A.R Rahman went to Trinity College of Music in London or Trinity College in Oxford? I have found out that the university in Oxford doesn't do Music at all and that one is not a Music college as well. I was pretty sure that A.R went to London but since the reference was quoted, I checked the Trinity College's (oxford) website. Not only that, the wikipedia article on Trinity college of Music's article also provides that Rahman went to London's. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_College_of_Music#Notable_past_pupils) Thanks a lot --Nirmarun (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an interview of A.R. Rahman on a radio show in which he said he has never left India for his musical education. He obtained a Trinity College of Music certificate in Keyboard, but this was done completely in Chennai. Most people around you who say they are grade 8 piano etc are pursuing a Trinity course or a similar course, and this can be done in most countries without going to England. I will try to find the interview and reference it here. Ckannan90 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ckannan90... Yh.. I do see what you mean, even I myself did 5 grades on keyboard under trinity college but not in chennai but in pondicherry... it will be really good if you could provide the evidence. Many people (including me) believe that ARR, Harris etc came to London to qualify degree. And thanks again for editing it. --Nirmarun (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yodha, 1992

• Karthik.raman 04:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC): Can anyone confirm that this is ARR's first film? The edit is unsourced and I am a bit doubtful...

I would say go ahead and remove it. Every source, including Gopal's ARR page indicates that Roja was the first movie by ARR. - unni 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Roja was released on Aug 15, 1992. Yodha came out on Sep 04, 1992. Unless he was signed 1st for Yodha, Roja should be recorded as his debut in movies. Mostly Clueless (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Yoddha was the Rahman's first film to have been released. I am a little confused by some of the dates. Yoddha was released in 1992 April-May timeframe. Roja came later, around the Sept-Oct timeframe. It is possible that Roja was the first film that he composed music for (though it released later). Need some supporting information on this, especially reference for the date of release claimed above. - User:Anandkmoorthy 18:06, 13 Jan 2008

Yodha was certified on 28th August, 1992. Roja was certified on 14th August, 1992. (Walrabbit (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Asian Mozart

It is common to refer to the person by nickname or other names. See Gavaskar where the name Sunny is in the lead paragraph. See Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel where the Iron man is in the lead paragraph  Doctor Bruno  02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aamir and Rahman

Is it true Aamir Khan and A R Rahman joined hand for Film?Guddu 06:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Foundation

The section I've just edited contained the same information about six different ways -- I've tried to edit it down to the essential information expressed just once. Accounting4Taste 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Attention recent editor:

Thank you for the enormous amount of work you have done on the A. R. Rahman page. This is obviously a subject that you find of great interest and you have brought a good deal of information to the article.

However, you have also introduced a lot of material that needs a considerable amount of work, and you should be aware that, until this work is done, your efforts are in danger of being removed by the next editor who sees them. Here are the areas that now need to be worked on:

1. You have introduced a large number of quotations to the article. Every single one of those quotations now needs to have a reference to its source so that anyone who reads the article can identify where the quotations come from. A couple of resources for citing are WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Citation templates.

2. The article needs to be divided up into logical sections, and the sections have to be identified with headings in the Wikipedia style.

3. The article needs to have your opinion material removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. Any material that is your opinion about how good this artist is has to go -- unless it is something that you are quoting from a respected third-party source, in which case, as per item 1 above, it needs a reference to that source. I will make a start on that by removing the paragraph you titled "Introduction", which was 100% opinion. Opinion material must be removed right down to individual words -- for instance, in Wikipedia, people do not "drool", they "say". Suggesting that they "drool" means that you are offering your opinion about how they meant what they said.

4. This article now contains an enormous amount of information, and some of this information might be more properly found in articles about other things, people, events, etc. Essentially, the article needs to be edited down to the essential information.

5. The article needs to be Wikified -- any time there is a mention of another person, film, award, et cetera, there should be a link to another page within Wikipedia (such as the links in item 1 above).

My advice is for you to (1) open an account within Wikipedia so that your editing can be identified with you, (2) go through the tutorial material within Wikipedia so you learn more about the topics I've mentioned above, and (3) complete the job you have started so that this article meets Wikipedia's standards. Since the article presently has such enormous amounts of work necessary, and doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for style and content, someone might remove your changes and "revert" the article back to where it was before, which would be the appropriate thing to do, so I recommend that you start this process quickly.

If you have any questions, I'll try to help as best I can, and you can contact me through my talk page -- which is one of the things you need to learn about. Accounting4Taste 06:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is unreadable

I'm considering just deleting that horrible chunk of text in the first section. Can someone convince me to take an hour to reorganise it? Because otherwise it's going very soon. --poorsod^talk 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above -- yes, it's definitely not Wikistyled. If the author wants it kept, s/he should be working away at it or expect to find it gone. I wouldn't delete it, though; you might just move it to the talk page so it can be reorganized, edited down, and the quotes sourced. There may be worthwhile nuggets in the mass of unrefined ore. Accounting4Taste 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all of the user's additions. The additions do not conform to a number of Wikipedia policies, and it appears some of the details are copyright violations (I took passages of material and found them to be identical to material found online). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I completely support your removing the material. I was just vainly hoping that there was something there that might be useful to someone, I guess. (And I didn't have the courage to read it through, let alone check it for copyvio, so thanks.) Accounting4Taste 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The language in the Biography section is terribly complex and staggering, probably too much so for the average reader to stay focused. Sentence structure should be straightened out a bit. We can't have sections like "...piano, in addition to, among others, the synthesizer,..." Dragu (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of recordings sold

I looked into the claim in the first paragraph and I don't think it's even "arguably" correct, so removed it. Madonna has sold more than 200 million albums according to Wikipedia, double what's claimed for this artist, and the Beatles have sold one billion units (one thousand million). Accounting4Taste 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This claim has re-appeared and rather than just revert it, I did some further research, both in Wikipedia and on the net in general. According to Wikipedia, this artist is not in the top ten but is "arguably" in the top 25, and considering the claims for "number of cassettes" may well be in the top 15, but cannot be considered to be in the top 10. The second citation in this article suggests that this artist has outsold both Madonna and Britney Spears put together -- but if you read it carefully, it is in number of cassettes sold, which is almost certainly true but ignores the number of CDs and downloads.

I don't make any claims one way or the other, and if someone has reliable information that proves the number of sales for this artist, I'll certainly acquiesce in whatever claims are advanced. Accounting4Taste 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "superhit" is essentially meaningless, as are any other grandiose qualifications that do not have numerical associations. If you wish to add qualifications to this article, and you mean them to be useful, then instead of adding meaningless words like "superhit" you could go to the extent of finding out exactly, or approximately, what numbers of sales are associated with specific projects and adding that information for other people's use. Wikipedia is not a fan magazine. Accounting4Taste 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also known as Allah Rakha Rahman?

He is is famous as "AR Rahman" he is not "also known" as by that name. it just happens to be that his birth name is differnt.

--12.152.10.63 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to A. R. Rahman article

The wiki pages for all academy nominated / winning artistes begin with "an academy nominated / winning". Made changes to reflect this consistence. Please see talk for more. The edit was reverted with a comment saying "gives too much importance to the academy". I feel this is a personal opinion and should not interfere with the consistence wrt other academy nominees / winners.

kgomadam 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Karthik kgomadam 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A user keeps adding false claims using a self-published source as a citation. Previous attempt to resolve dispute on talk page here was ignored here, not addressed or replied to either, just removed. The sources in question are the blog here and this site here, whose disclaimer at the bottom states quite clearly in any case that the author is not knowlegable in the field (in this case music). His work has not been previously published by a reliable third party publication therefore these sources are in violation of WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubover (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a pretty clear-cut situation. Self-published sources are strictly not allowed as reliable sources. If independent, third party sources can be found for the information contested, please add references to them. IF there are none, they may be removed in a timely manner. The problem with self-published sources is that anyone can then create a blog and publish their own 'fact', then add it to Wikipedia, and damage its reputation. _Jame§^ugrono 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. I think this edit is in violation of many policies, it is poorly sourced negative information which can and should be removed immediately. It doesn't help matters when the User who is adding this stuff keeps deleting these discussions from the talk pages either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubover (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments using ~~~~. I will give the user one last warning. _Jame§^ugrono 07:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL

One Dileep Kumar adopts a Muslim name and another Muslim adopts the name Dilip Kumar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.120.11 (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And they are both married to different women named Saira Banu! Bongomatic 22:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Organising Summary of career section

The section seems more haphazard and less organised chronologically or logically. If it can be classified either by timeline or any other logical manner, there shall be more scope to build and expand on it. sriks8 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A decent TIME Magazine article you can quote in this article

This article might help provide substantiation for some of the facts that are quoted in this AR Rahman article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501040503-629433,00.html

Let's stick with strong, credible references whenever possible. Here's one. And it was no sweat to find with Google.com. AppleJuggler (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove the overpraise

The lead, introductory paragraph contains phrases that say AR Rahman is the greatest Indian music composer ever. This is a point of view. Could we remove this and other fan gush to make this article more objective please? If we are serious about creating a top-notch Wiki about AR Rahman, we must hold back from spewing laudatory froth. For an example of restraint and poise in writing, see Ilaiyaraaja. AppleJuggler (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

birth year of A R Rahman

i read from http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/ar_rahman#/track/theme_music that the birth year of ARR is 1967.

but this page says it is 1966.

which one is correct?

Kanthaa (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)kanthaa, 8th april 2008

Can it be mentioned that the song "Chaiyya Chaiyya" by A. R. Rahman from Dil Se was used in the Hollywood film "Inside Man" by Spike Lee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.30.172 (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Clash with puritans

In the early 1990s, several puritan Carnatic maestros used to lambast A.R.Rahman for "spoiling" the lyrics with overbearing sound and gadgetry. I think, one of them was called Subbudu. Can someone please add that material to the article? Anwar (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS you can add it yourself but remember this claim seems a bit like a WP:REDFLAG claim and might need mainstream source. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But Subbudu was more of a Carnatic music critic. And take note of the fact that he was very old when he began criticizing film music.

He was a "purist" who liked to stick to the "rules". He also has the reputation of criticizing just about any composer regardless of his status. More here: http://hawkeyeview.blogspot.com/2007/04/subbudu.html

So his criticisms on film music cannot be taken "seriously".freewit (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or photo blog

Do we really need the "Photo Zone"? This looks more like a blog rather than an encyclopedia!

freewit (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the photos. If someone disagrees with me, please discuss it here and prove that these photos are not copyrighted.freewit (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WSJ profile

I added the following reference to the Further reading section:

• Wise, Brian. 30 December 2008. One Movie Composer Who Knows the Score. The Wall Street Journal.

An editor deleted the reference stating in the edit summary that the entry was "in blog format" (which is not correct) and was "not accurate" (which was not backed up by anything in particular).

Since the article is not used to reference any particular claim, and it is in what is generally considered to be a reliable source, are there any legitimate grounds for removal of the link?

Bongomatic 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is in blog format for it has a comments section, is what was meant. As for the inaccuracy, it calls Tamil Nadu cinema classics Roja and Kadhalan Bollywood films for a start. If it's not used to cite any information in the article, and most of its information is on the article anyway, cited by reliable sources, what's the grounds for its inclusion? Whilst it is a good faith edit, It's an unnecessary extra external link, which we're not learning anything new from. It can be removed, as the section is not meant to simply be an aggregate of links. Clubover (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi a r rahman sir. this is mahendra from tirupati(ap).

your songs is exelent

91.130.91.92

User:91.130.91.92 keeps reverting edits for absolutely no reason at all and fails to provide any valid reasons in his/her edit summary for doing so. If you are reading, please respond and explain why you feel the need to keep reverting those edits before doing it again. Also note that reverting more than three times could get you blocked, so it would be best if you stop reverting and start explaining yourself first. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Filmfare is a commercial magazine award for regional movies. It's just spam compared to the other awards listed, and hence not apprioriate to list here. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Official name of this Filmfare Award is "FAIR ONE Filmfare Award" [[2]]... are you * kidding me? --91.130.91.92 (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you reverted my edit again for the 4th time. You're reference to the Filmfare magazine is pointless, because that was founded in 1967, over a decade after the Filmfare Awards itself was founded in 1956. The Filmfare Awards is the OLDEST film award ceremony in India, alongside the National Film Awards. The Filmfare Awards holds the same importance in India that the Oscars and Golden Globes hold in the US and the BAFTA Awards hold in the UK. Also note that the Oscars, Golden Globes and BAFTAs are also "commercial awards", and yet I don't see you having a problem with them? What's even more puzzling is that you continue to keep the Tamil Nadu State Film Awards, which is far less important than the Filmfare Awards. Why do you feel the need to remove awards from a ceremony as old and prestigious as the Filmfare Awards? Please explain yourself more clearly. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I just revert your WP:NPOV violations. FAIR ONE Filmfare Awards are just one bullshit award, alongside all the other bullshit awards. There are so many newspapers in the world, older and more important than this one. The Filmfare Award article is stupid. Why does it claim, that Filmfare Awards were introduced in 1956 when they actually were introduced or renamed in 1967? Here is also an example how some actors react to this corrupt commercial filmfare world http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/hrithik-roshan-the-star-of-india-547962.html "Ever since, Roshan has been accompanied by minders; two of whom loiter in the doorway during our interview. Roshan says his first instinct after the shooting was to quit the business but, instead, he publicly denounced the corruption of the industry at the Filmfare Awards. "I wanted them to know that I was stronger than them and that the industry is stronger than them," he says. "I wanted to carry on and find even more success, just to prove how weak they really are." I will not allow such bullshit here in A. R. Rahman article. Period. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And for the record. National Awards or State Awards are official awards of the country, as like Academy Awards and BAFTA are for their countries. Hence, they are eligible to have a stand here. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

At least you'll make it easy for us to have you blocked. That's always appreciated. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

very productive statement, Old Man. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

91.130.91.92, your views of the Filmfare Awards being a "bullshit awards" is a tiny-minority view and therefore an obvious violation of the undue weight policy. The vast majority of the Hindi film industry views the Filmfare Awards as its most important award ceremony, and there are even academic scholars referring to the Filmfare Awards as "Bollywood's Oscars" or even the "Oscars of India", like in the following academic publications for example:

• Mishra, Vijay, Bollywood Cinema: A Critical Genealogy (PDF), Victoria University of Wellington, p. 9, retrieved 2009-02-24
• Mehta, Monika (2005), "Globalizing Bombay Cinema: Reproducing the Indian State and Family", Cultural Dynamics, 17: 135-154 [145], doi:10.1177/0921374005058583
• Boltin, Kylie (Autumn 2003), "Saathiya: South Asian Cinema Otherwise Known as 'Bollywood'", Metro Magazine: Media & Education Magazine (136): 52–5, ISSN 0312-2654

If you are still intent on POV-pushing and desperate to try prove the Filmfare Awards as a "bullshit awards", then you're going to have to try a lot harder than that. If you fail to find any reliable sources to support your fringe claims, then I'll have to start reverting your edits regarding the Filmfare Awards.

Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, the Academy Awards, Golden Globes and BAFTA Awards are all completely independent from their governments (like the Filmfare Awards), unlike the National Film Awards and Tamil Nadu State Awards which are run by the Indian government. The only awards that are eligible to stand here are the ones recognized as the most prestigious by the film industries themselves, not by the government. In India's case, the most prestigious awards are the National Film Awards and the Filmfare Awards, which are both far more widely recognized by the Indian film fraternity than the Tamil Nadu State Awards. If you believe otherwise, then I'd like to see some reliable sources to support your fringe claims. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards are nowhere independent as Academy Awards. Filmfare Awards is not attached to any professional academy or government. They are also just regional and full commercial. It's a "popular" Award also, since regular people, with no professional background chose their winners. It's like all the newspaper votes, kind of ridiculous and commercial, just to make money via TV commercials. They are so many of them in India, eg. Asianet Film Awards, the "biggest Award" http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/22353100.cms in Kerala, but Mohanlal's Homepage is only happy with real State Awards if you look at his homepage. If we go by your opinion, then we would have to put in all these stupid Awards. I already proved the lack of credibility for Filmfare with the statement of Hrithik Roshan as he compared the Filmfare Background Team with Criminals. On the other hand, film makers at least in South are very humbled, when they get an official State award. You can check that at Mohanlal's homepage, when it's online again thecompleteactor.com. He's an 4-time National Award winner too, as A R Rahman is. Also you should answer my questions. Why don't you answer my question about the renaming date? You are desperately trying to enhance Fair One Filmfare Awards in its age. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mohanlals Award priorities as follows (his homepage is back online): http://www.thecompleteactor.com/achievements.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.130.91.92 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hritik Roshan was criticizing the Hindi film industry as a whole, not just the Filmfare Awards, while Mohanlal was not even criticizing the Filmfare Awards in the first place. At all featured articles about Indian film personalities, it has already been agreed by consensus that the Filmfare Awards and National Film Awards should take priority over all other awards as far as the Hindi film industry is concerned. Check out the featured article Preity Zinta for example, which only includes her Filmfare Awards and no others in the infobox and filmography. Like I said, if you're trying to discredit the Filmfare Awards, then show me some reliable sources that discredit it, instead of resorting to your own original research. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Preity Zinta has not won any National Award or any professional recognition of her work. Filmfare Awards may have the best reputation among all commercial Awards, but there is no way, that they may have exclusive status as seen in the Preity Zinta article. This is clearly a violation against WP:NPOV. If you want to put in commercial Awards, then you have to treat all commercial Awards same. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also there must be a visible distinction of professional and commercial Awards. Without this, it would be undue weight, when they are mentioned all in a row. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For your information, the Preity Zinta article is a featured article. In other words, it's been chosen by the Wikipedian community as one of the best written articles there is about Indian film personalities. Also, Preity Zinta has won an international award for Best Actress from the Chicago International Film Festival, but the Filmfare Awards take priority even over international film festival awards at that article. In order for the A. R. Rahman article or any other article concerning Indian film stars to ever reach featured article status, we'll need to follow the examples of current featured articles, like the Preity Zinta article for example. Since the Filmfare Awards clearly take priority in a featured article, then there is no reason why they should not take priority here. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the awards mentioned in this artcle are skewed heavily towards his Tamil works (Tamil Nadu State Film Awards) and English works (Oscars, Golden Globes and BAFTAs), with hardly any mention of the awards he won for his Hindi works, which is clearly a breach of the undue weight policy. Like I said, the most prestigious awards for the Hindi film industry is clearly the Filmfare Awards, therefore it is vital that we include them in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry dude, Wikipedia or imdb is not that kind of source we need, hence Preity Zinta article is an invalid option. Please cite professional sources, who say, that Filmfare Awards are even more important to Hindi industry than National Awards or international Awards to back your statements. In addition, I would like to see a suggestion here on the talk page, how you would like to make it visible, that Filmfare is a non-professional award. Thanks. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted three academic sources above which regard the Filmfare Awards as the Oscars of the Hindi film industry. Do you have any academic sources to back up your claim that the Filmfare Awards are non-professional? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been two days and I haven't received a response from you yet. I think I've already made my case that the Filmfare Awards are widely regarded as the Oscars of the Hindi film industry on the basis of reliable academic sources, so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't restore them. However, I'm not too sure about the status of the 'Filmfare Awards South' within the Tamil film industry, so I'll agree to leave those out, and only include the original Filmfare Awards for the Hindi film industry. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added in all filmfare award wins, unless there are objections. Clubover (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll make it short, dear mister "know-all" anon, 91.130.91.92. Your personal opinion of Filmfare, which is the most veteran--and one of the most prominent--award function in India, does not really interest me. The fact is that it is a very famous, regarded and important award ceremony. And Mr AR Rehman himself attends the ceremony every year and is very happy to get his trophy. You better look at newspapers and websites, which awaited the ceremony and reported any new step towards its beginning. Amitabh Bachchan and many others said they preferred Filmfare to National Film Awards. Books and major encyclopedias also mention Filmfare on every possible ocassion and refer to it as one of the most prominent ceremonies. There is no even sense in comparing articles and throwing policy names. I'm not going to make a very big deal out of a thing that is so obvious and discuss it much further. If you don't wanna get your account blocked, you better let your personal favoritism stay out of Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith on the part of the user. We can't list every award in the intro that he has won, and Rahman has attended several ceremonies winning awards. By this inclusion, we will have to also include the Filmfare Awards South, and every other award he's won in the intro, which is not practical per WP:Lead. Rather than getting into politics of exclusion, it's best this is kept out of the lead. They are mentioned in the notes sections of the table, which is more than enough. Clubover (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of my above message you had problems reading? Filmfare is in this case as prominent as the National Film Awards in terms of seniority, notability, importance, prominence, popularity (even more) and whatever else you would like to call it. I can't see why we have to argue over something so obvious as this one. This user is not assuming good faith in this case. We list only notable awards. South Filmfare awards are not necessary because they are just another version (quite insignificant). I'm talking about the Filmfare Awards, not its mimics. State awards have been held for at most 10 years and this user is probably there to add it, highlighting his biasness, not something that I'm gonna tolerate. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the other hand thinking to remove the Tamil Nadu State Film Awards which constitute one of many insignificant award ceremonies, added in an action driven by POV and favoritism. It's a new award ceremony (how? ten years? huh!) like many others without any notable or major coverage in the press (check google, check the Internet Movie database, chack some books which does not even know what it is). Its notability must be established in the first place. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And you are here to decide what? --91.130.91.92 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At the rate you're going, you're looking at a block for unwillingness to Assume good faith and edit warring. Please stop, and discuss issues on the talk page. Try to come to a consensus with other users, rather than pushing what you feel is right, and telling users to stay out of things just because your point of view is not being upheld. The article has survived quite fine without this little extra info in the lead. You have not provided evidence to suggest why South based awards are less prominent. They are on A. R. Rahman's official website, are no doubt more prominent, and I'm sure he's very appreciative of them. Please provide reliable sources that state the Filmfare Awards South are not part of the magazine's awards. Refrain from pushing your WP:POV and see things from all angles. Clubover (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Clubover, please explain why you think Filmfare shouldn't be mentioned. Don't try to avoid answering it, you're not dealing with a fool. It's the most prominent film ceremony in India, along with NFA, and for that you have sources. Filmfare Awards South have not been particularly mentioned by any source I know, and the fact that they are presented in a separate article says it all. Any source covering Filmfare awards does not mention the south awards as a part of it. I can't see any particular notabiliy given to it, there is no mention of it in any particularly reliable sources, even its article is entirely unsourced, and if you think they are part of the award function, or as notable, YOU have to cite sources for that because you calim so. If they're as notable as the original Filmfare, they can be added too - i have no problem at all. The Filmfare magazine covers only Hindi cinema. The template of "infobox actor" has a particular field for Filmfare, the National Film Awards being the only other Indian Film award existing in the template (I was the one who fought to add NFA a few years ago BTW).

In general, we are not talking here about the south awards and their notability, we are talking about the inclusion of Filmfare in the lead, and it will be included. If you think they shouldn't be, cite a genuine reason for that. Don't make up stories about South Awards now, avoiding the main discussion. Filmfare is a notable and veteran ceremony, whose notaility was proved perfectly, though I still think it was unnecessary because it's quite obvious. If you prove the notability of South Awards, add them.

Oh BTW, I want to know what the notability of the State Awards is. And to answer the question of the anon: "And you are here to decide what?" - I'm not here to decide. WP:N, WP:V will decide. Its article does not cite sources (just like Filmfare South). Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing on his official website is adequate, but here's a source I found for general protocol on the off chance. [3] Published in 1998. It prints that Rahman won a Filmfare Award in 1997 at the 45th Annual Awards for South Indian films. I think the notability of this information trounces you so that's that. Clubover (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AR Rahman's early career - years 1984-1988

Today only I came to know about Rahman's early life of 1984-1988. He worked as key-board player for couple of music directors of Kannada film industry. Same can read at Deccan Herald news paper link [[4]]. I updated the same in his career section, but for some reason it is being removed (one user is 131.231.181.92). What does this mean? you don't want to give the correct information or you are just biased? Please stop doing that, if you have a valid reason please share. Else people will just lose interest on the biased versions of wikipedia's so called information. For correct info they can refer books, other websites or news papers. Sunwalk (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Album roja cover.jpg

The image File:Album roja cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)