Talk:Shere Khan

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


Deleted the reference to Shir Khan, which was just confusing. In the books Kipling only ever uses the one spelling. Lee M 03:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleted links leading to pages containg villains (ie: film villains) because Shere Khan is a predator not a villian. I kept him as a Disney villain however

The villagers believe the big cat to be the reincarnation of a hard-hearted money-lender. Mowgli is skeptical about this because he knows Shere Khan was born lame. But if you think about it, the fact that he was born lame makes it more likely, not less, that his lameness is the result of reincarnation. Erudil 16:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the phrase "ginger cosh"; could not understand the phrase, was not able to find a definition for it in various dictionaries (including slang dictionaries); google search on "ginger cosh" turned up only this very wiki article. Phrase must not be in popular usage. Danwri (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted the translation of Sher to mean "lion". Lion in Hindi is Singh or Babbur Sher. S P 17:13, 23 August 2009, Ahmedabad, India

Undid the last change of translation of the word sher to tiger. This is just plain wrong. Sher is the colloquially used term for Lions (Sinh being the formal term), while Bagh is the term for Tigers. Sometimes the word sher is used more generally to refer to any big cat but which is why Rudyard Kipling might himself have used it to refer to the tigers. Though not the best possible reference, but the best I can think of, look at any discovery channel / animal planet voice overs of documentaries on lions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why does the article have a birthdate for the Disney villain? Is this information sourced from somewhere reliable -- and even if it is, is it really worth having here? AAHoug 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voice in Spanish version of Disney film[edit]

The start of the "Disney Version" section says:

In Disney's 1967 animated adaptation of The Jungle Book, Shere Khan is the major villain, entering the story about two-thirds of the way through. His seductive, purring voice was supplied by the late George Sanders and by Carlos Petrel in the Spanish version of the movie.

I understand that there should be some notability responsible for the mention of the Spanish voice of Sher Khan for the Disney version. Could someone help me out with determining what it is, exactly? I hope the way that I came out didn't sound harsh; it wasn't intended to be. Much appreciated. (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sher shah suri[edit]

how could kipling have encountered sher shah suri in afghanistan when he born 300 years after sher shah suri died and sher shah suri never invaded afghanistan in the first place59.164.19.120 (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides one category, this article does not reference TaleSpin, which carries Jungle Book characters in a developed city. --Gh87 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tiger = बाघ (Baagh); Lion = शेर (Shere)[edit]

So the line

"The word Shere translates as "tiger" in Urdu/Hindi/Punjabi,"

is incorrect, but I'm not sure how to correct it. It seems the writer (Rudyard Kipling) himself made a mistake.बंगाल_बाघ

Bengal_tiger — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurkMenthaa (talkcontribs) 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word 'Sher' or 'Shir' (Persian: شیر) is of Persian origin,[1] and though it was meant for the Asiatic lion, it was also used for Bengal and Caspian tigers, as one can see here. Leo1pard (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Shahbazi, Shapur A. (2001). "Flags (of Persia)". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 10. Retrieved 2016-03-10.

Original Research[edit]

Please note that unless a reliable source can be provided, statements such as that Khan is the main antagonist or speculation as to why he's immune to Kaa's hypnosis constitute original research and should not be added to the article. Doniago (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, the article never stated he was immune, or at least I never put anything of the sort. Shere Khan was the main antagonist, I thought anybody who saw the film would see that as obvious, but I guess we need proof. As for the stuff that I have added that you continuously delete, I gave you an actual link to the events that took place, and what happened between his first meeting with Mowgli in the Disney film. Because this certain discussion isn't about that, I'm going to re-add that information, but I'll keep the antagonist and immunity portion out. From what I saw, the article never stated that he was immune to Kaa's powers, and just left it questionable as to him either being immune or intuitive. Sage94 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"He avoids falling victim to Kaa's hypnotic powers, though whether from intuition, observation, or immunity is unclear." - This does not state that he is immune, in fact, it actually questions it. It is left unclear if he is or isn't immune, and even states that he could have just been intuitive or observative. You only payed attention to one word. That's not how it works, Doniago. Sage94 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Cast section of MOS:FILM discusses why assigning characters roles is inappropriate without sourcing, but more to the point...if the character's actions are properly described via any plot summary then it shouldn't be necessary for us to label them in any case. But it boils down to it not being our place to assign characters roles unless a source has described them as such.
That sentence is clear speculation on our parts without a reliable source. We shouldn't speculate as to why Khan's unaffected, we should simply say he is unaffected. Doniago (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lack of sources[edit]

If anything is lacking a source please: 1. Ask the original editor to provide sources 2. Take a minute or two to search for sources 3. Place a tag on the article, so other editors can find sources.

The above are easy and polite.

If there are no BLP issues, don't be disruptive and remove sections without trying the above first. It's rude and does not help wikipedia.

Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good advice as potentially "best practice", but in reality the article's already been tagged since 2008 and there is no requirement that editors look for sources before removing material. In fact, unsourced information may be outright removed without warning of any sort (in that sense, tagging first is also something that might be considered good manners but is not a requirement). In my opinion if nobody's been able to provide a reference for information for 5+ years than it is not unreasonable to believe the sources may not exist, and while moving the information here may be preferable to removing it outright, there's also no requirement that an editor do that. Keeping unsourced information in an article for years is, as has been discussed at WT:V, generally considered not preferable to removing it until such time as references can be provided.
That said, it's also often considered "best practice" to, when information one wishes to retain is challenged, go ahead and locate sources rather than get into a discussion about whether or not they're required. The discussion will likely consume more time and effort than simply providing sources, will moot any WP:BURDEN concerns, and generally is the most practical option. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There might have been a tag from 2008, and from looking at previous edits I can see that you have been edit warring on this article since 2013 - however, that has nothing whatsoever to do with my edits. I was adding the two major actors who are going to play Shere Khan (in movies that were not even planned backed in 2008), from looking at the edit history you have only been edit warring on that point for about three months. Don't start claiming 2008 blah blah, when you know perfectly well that the tag in 2008 has absolutely nothing to do with the edits I made. Since you love quoting WP:BURDEN , let's take a look at it. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. so, yeah - you can removed material when it lacks a source. Let's look at some more... Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step You seemed to ignore the suggestions of tagging the material you objected to, and totally disregarded the fact that editors obviously object to your actions. It's nice to see that you cherry pick the parts of WP:BURDEN that support your actions, and totally ignore the rest of it. It takes minutes at most to find a source, you're just be lazy and disruptive by deleting material with looking for the sources yourself. Jeez when I look at your edit history, I can clearly see that you have added just about nothing to wikipedia, you have just reverted about 50 people daily for lacking sources, without looking yourself. Be a little more constructive with your edits please. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got nothing to add to this discussion except the following: WP:Preserve is as much a policy as WP:Burden is, even though WP:Preserve is the lesser known policy out of the two and many people ignore it even when being told of it. The WP:Burden policy points to the WP:Preserve policy. Flyer22 (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, you are talking about an editor who has years of doing nothing but reverting people for lack of sources. I really wonder how many new editors got their material removed, logged out of wikipedia and never edited it again. Rules and guidelines are important, removing material that is incorrect is even more important, removing something for example "band X covered song Y", when it takes 30 seconds to find a source is just disruptive. It's cherry picking certain rules, while ignoring other just as relevant rules, just to prove a point. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding major issue with this page[edit]

Apparently we can't mention the fact that Shere Khan is the main antagonist of The Jungle Book, despite the fact that he is, because it's "not sourced". That's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that such a rule only seems to exist or at least be enforced on this page regarding this character. All other famous villains/antagonists have their roles as main antagonists mentioned on their pages despite having no citated sources. And on this very page and others regarding the 1994 film, it goes out of it's way to mention that Boone, a one-shot character who only appeared in one adaptation that was even further away from the original source than the animated Disney film, as the villain of that film, despite once again there being no source for that either. By comparison, the closest we get to Shere Khan, the main antagonist of the series/franchise, being referred to as such is mention of him being "a villain" in Mowgli's Story, where he was, once again, the main antagonist. So a one-shot character is referred to as "the" villain while the primary Jungle Book antagonist is referred to as "a" villain at best.

That is like removing all mentions of Bowser being the main antagonist of the Mario franchise because there's no linked source, yet constantly referring to Wart, a one shot character from Super Mario Bros 2 as the main antagonist of Mario 2 whenever he's mentioned, despite also having no linked source to said information. It's just extremely bizarre and confusing and does nothing to help with the article. If anything it's extremely misleading to readers unfamilar with the work and it's characters, which is the exact opposite of the purpose of these articles.

So either enforce this rule for other villains/antagonists, or don't enforce it at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C100:8B:9C16:A60C:956:F62F (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page views[edit]

Leo1pard (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]