Talk:Rani Mukerji/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Recent removals

There have been recent removals of content by Haphar (talk · contribs). Such large scale changes cannot be carried out without discussion. Whatever issues you have with the content, kindly discuss them on the article talk page - there have been edit wars on this page earlier over content. xC | ☎ 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All the additions of fancruft have been wothout discussion and in direct reversal to earlier disucssions on the topic. There is no need to mention every movie release of hers, nor eulogise her, and make studd up of 5 billion rs impact, she is not the sole actor in her movies and most of her hit movies have not been sole perfomances by her but have had co stars, also write ups on her "tanned look" being appreciated for a role, and her not being able to sign a movie due to date issues is not relevant. This is not a fan site but an encyclopedia that does not go into such fan related stuff. Haphar 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is ironic that an editor uses an edit summary 'please discuss before reverting them' when he himself has not bothered to even write a word on the article talk page - [1].

I also note that several films have been removed from the body of the article altogether - Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega, Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye, Chori Chori Chupke Chupke and Mujhse Dosti Karoge!. If there is any logic to these removals, we would all be grateful to hear it.

Haphar (talk · contribs) also commented in an edit summary that In the media - remove the section, everything the actors do is in the media. May I point Haphar to Angelina Jolie, a featured article which has a very well written (and massive) section titled In the Media.

Some dialogue on this talk page prior to such changes would be appreciated.

Regards,xC | ☎ 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Shifting reply from middle of my post to below. His reply was referring to my sentence when he himself has not bothered to even write a word on the article talk pagexC | ☎ 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

( please check the archives before making smart alack statements- Haphar 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Where exactly did you discuss these earlier disucssions on the topic? Because I don't find any edits from you in the last few months. In fact, you're comments indicate you haven't bothered to read the archives, because there has been extensive debate over the content in recent weeks.

As for the listing of (apparently unimportant) films, Angelina Jolie carries four sentences on Playing God , when clearly the film did not fare well financially or with critics (as per Playing God (film)). Instead of making these sweeping statements relying complete on your own personal bias, please discuss point one-by-one which movies, sections and/or anything else you believe does not deserve place in this article.xC | ☎ 15:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Xcentaur keep civil and stick to the topic without making personal allegations. Lets discuss the issue and not perceptions. If you want a discussion stay off the accusations and focus on the facts. So if you have been sticking to the Rani Hrithik and Shah rukh pages page, there is an obvious bias you have towards these actors. For your information this issue has been discussed to death earlier here.Before making accusations and going of the handle, you should go through the archives and do your homework. Yes the logic of removal of the films is that every film does not merit a mention in the main article there is a filmography section for that. The "main" films is what the article should refer to. 1 bad example does not justify the same information being updated here. I do not see you comenting upon biased and sweeping statements -like "establishing herself as the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood". ( among many) If we can stick to facts rather than fan like stuff it would help the article. Haphar 15:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) And going running to Shez15 just seems to confirm some facts, as he has been on this merry go round before. Haphar 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Xcentaur keep civil and stick to the topic without making personal allegations. - I find it funny that someone with such a large number of WP:CIVIL concerns on their talk page is issuing warnings to me.

there is an obvious bias you have towards these actors. - Just so you know, I have been working on the Bollywood articles in general. One glance at someones edit count does not give you the right to make such statements.

For your information this issue has been discussed to death earlier here. - I am well aware of that, since I was part of those discussions as well. I don't see your contribution to any recent discussions on article content, so what exactly are you trying to say?

1 bad example does not justify the same information being updated here - I do not see how it is a bad example. It is a very good example of how the main article must be balanced. Your removals only serve to create a strong POV in the article, biased towards showing her as a wholly successful actress. They do not maintain NPOV.

"establishing herself as the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood". ( among many) - you are misrepresenting what was in the article - establishing herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood. Nowhere is it said that she is the best. Secondly, that line was taken word for word from the lead of Angelina Jolie, which is a featured article. In fact, there is no ref there either. Here we have provided refs for that as well. That she is one of the best known and highest paid is a fact, if you wish to remove that from this article, then by the same logic, the lead of FA Jolie is POV. How is that possible?xC | ☎ 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As for running to shez, Plumcouch is away, Pa7 is on holiday, Zora has left Wikipedia and Ekantik is on wikibreak. The only editors working on this page are Shez, Shshshsh and myself. Therefore it seemed correct to inform them of the recent changes. I do not know what you were trying to imply by your sentence.xC | ☎ 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses to above

Xcentaur keep civil and stick to the topic without making personal allegations. - I find it funny that someone with such a large number of WP:CIVIL concerns on their talk page is issuing warnings to me.

To quote you " Instead of making these sweeping statements relying complete on your own personal bias". Is a statement you made about me, it is rude and If you make allegations/ are rude, you would be asked to keep civil. You also told half truths on the protect page ( ie he did not revert, this being two minutes after you left a comment on my talk page). You are being extremely uncivil. Please do control yourself as being rude and making accusations would not help resolve the issue.

there is an obvious bias you have towards these actors. - Just so you know, I have been working on the Bollywood articles in general. One glance at someones edit count does not give you the right to make such statements.

Well if one glance at my talk page allows you to make comments, why do you hold it against others to look at your fan following of ms Zinta, Mukerji and Mr's Khan and Roshan ?

For your information this issue has been discussed to death earlier here. - I am well aware of that, since I was part of those discussions as well. I don't see your contribution to any recent discussions on article content, so what exactly are you trying to say?

Well you are obviously not well aware and there are earlier discussions that you were not a part of. You might not be detail oriented but before reverting please do go through the archives.

1 bad example does not justify the same information being updated here - I do not see how it is a bad example. It is a very good example of how the main article must be balanced. Your removals only serve to create a strong POV in the article, biased towards showing her as a wholly successful actress. They do not maintain NPOV.

I am removing fan gush on trivial films , I removed lines that showed her "new tanned look" being appreciated and I removed roles that she could not do due to dates issue as that is not relevant. Removing all this trivia does not show her as succesfull, in fact it removes the attempted potrayal of her as a demi goddess that even her "tanned look" and turned down roles need to be discussed. And it might be a good example to you, it is a good example of a bad statement to me.

"establishing herself as the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood". ( among many) - you are misrepresenting what was in the article - establishing herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood. Nowhere is it said that she is the best. Secondly, that line was taken word for word from the lead of Angelina Jolie, which is a featured article. In fact, there is no ref there either. Here we have provided refs for that as well. That she is one of the best known and highest paid is a fact, if you wish to remove that from this article, then by the same logic, the lead of FA Jolie is POV. How is that possible ?

So you quote on your page that you do like the NPOV principle, please read it an example of the Beatles is quoted to show what is POV. This statement is a very good illustration of what is a POV. You can support it with whatever fan gush you want, but the fact is it is POV.

As for running to shez, Plumcouch is away, Pa7 is on holiday, Zora has left Wikipedia and Ekantik is on wikibreak. The only editors working on this page are Shez, Shshshsh and myself. Therefore it seemed correct to inform them of the recent changes. I do not know what you were trying to imply by your sentence

Again if you do your howmwork you would know. Shez has been told a large number of times to keep the fan content off the page. Pa7 and Plumchouch will be back, we can wait for them, they are certainly more balanced then shez on this topic and would be fine to resolve the issue.

Haphar 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I referred to the Playing God part as a good example, not the tanned look bit. I support the removal of the tanned look rubbish, all of that was slated for a cleanup anyhow. I am concerned about you throwing out valid content in trying to cleanup.

You can support it with whatever fan gush you want, but the fact is it is POV. - I do not see how it fangush. It is a statement similar (almost identical) to one in an FA level article. It is true, and carries a reference.

I well aware of Shez's behaviour, having worked with him and several other editors in the past few months.

You have yet not replied on any of the concerns I have raised below.xC | ☎ 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to raise some concerns-

1.It seems that there is a different set of rules for FA articles and another for non-FA articles. Examples-

1]Playing God (film) which has been given space on the FA Angelina Jolie. It is a commercial and critical failure. However it is still there. Here Haphar has removed certain (apparently) non-notable films from this page. Why is there this discrepancy?

2]In the lead of Jolie, there is the line has established herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Hollywood. without a ref at the end. This article had the exact same line, changing Hollywood to Bollywood, and provided references. Yet it was removed. Why is that?

3]Diane Keaton is an FA level article. In the lead, it is clearly written Keaton's films have earned a cumulative gross of over USD 1.1 billion in North America. However Haphar has removed the box office impact portion from the lead, stating less hype please- all the Rs 5 billion was not due to her drawing power in the edit summary. I wonder, why is it that FA Diane Keaton can have box office gross total in the lead while Mukerji cannot?

4]Removal of In the media section - Haphar has removed the In the media section completely, stating In the media - remove the section, everything the actors do is in the media. Jolie has a very large section In the media, and last when I checked, she is an actor as well. Then what exactly is the logic behind this removal?

2. Apart from these, I am also concerned with the current version of the article appearing strongly pro-Mukerji. We have no note whatsoever of her failures, for example Chori Chori (2003 film) has been removed from the article, which was a failure at the box office. Therefore the page as of now only talks of her successful films. I believe this goes against the policy of NPOV. Even Mother Teresa has a criticism section on her page. Therefore I do not see why a filmstar should be painted in such a strongly POV manner.

If Haphar, or any other editor, could allay these concerns, I would be grateful. Regards,xC | ☎ 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is rich that Xcentaur is commenting on my making the article more favorable to Rani and attacking my removal of the following statements/ sections and in the same breath Xcentaur is fighting for retaining the following statement :-

has established herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Hollywood.

Further Xcentaur goes on to say "However Haphar has removed the box office impact portion from the lead, stating less hype please- all the Rs 5 billion was not due to her drawing power in the edit summary. I wonder, why is it that FA Diane Keaton can have box office gross total in the lead while Mukerji cannot?"

And then says

Haphar has removed the In the media section completely

None of these lines removal shows Rani as less succesfull, in fact they are fangush that build her up. What shez 15 used to do earlier ( get every film of Rani's a mention) Xcentaur is attempting throught this subterfuge of having "criticism". Note this is despite Xcentuar not acting on peer feedback the Xcentaur requested for on this article . The peer feedback said pls have a criticsim section as this article is biased. Xcentaur does not want to add the criticism section for Rani and then claims removal of non notable films is making Rani seem less succesful. This despite the fact that the removed content also had gushing comments about her performance in these failed films making it appear like she was the lone saving grace of the films.

The Angelina exampe has just one film mentioned Playing God (film), while for Rani under this subterfuge Xcentaur had every dud film of her listed. Add one dud film if you feel like, but without any fan gush about her performance.

Well if Diane Keaton has a box office impact,- Amitabh Bachchan, Vinod Khanna, Shatrughan Sinha, Rajesh Khanna, Waheeda Rehman, Hema Malini,Dilip Kumar, Rekha do not, they might not be FA but they are Bollywood stars. And even in FA, Xcentaurs other point of reference Angelina does not have the line.

Haphar 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Xcentaur does not want to add the criticism section for Rani - when did I ever say that? Did you ever ask me? You are drawing your own conclusions. I would just like to point out that, just as done in Mother Teresa, criticism is usually inline with the text. WP:Criticism, while not policy or guideline, may give a few other ideas on how to incorporate criticism in the article. Kindly do not attribute words which I have never said to me.

You have not addressed the removal of the In the media section. Why the double standard?

they are fangush that build her up. - I do not see how including unsuccessful films of hers in the article builds her up. Could you please elaborate?

Note this is despite Xcentuar not acting on peer feedback the Xcentaur requested for on this article - The peer feedback is being acted upon. Perhaps you did not notice, but suggestions which have been dealt with have been struck through. This article is a work in progress, just as most (if not all) articles in WP are.

Regards,xC | ☎ 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it was suggested to you in the peer review for the article. It was some time back, and you have not acted upon it. so it does lead to a conclusion that you do not want to add the criticim section- considering the fact that you have made other changes to the article since the peer review.

Haphar 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Harphar

Harphar, what is your problem? Couldn't you at least be civil in your edits? Now, look what you've done, made us enter another useless edit war just when things were changing. Why couldn't you have discussed on the talk page as other editors have been doing in the past before editing? Anyhow, your edits seem partial to Rani Mukerji's success only. I think there is no actor in the world where he/she has not fared failure. Thus, it is important to integrate that information into the article. The Rs. 5 billion net doesn't just indicate that Rani has drawn all that money but her films have where she has been the lead for the most part. And the importance of a new look is extremely significant for a mention as that makeover made her popular all over again. For Bollywood, glamour is the core of their films and looks and clothes are noticed to a great extent. I believe the career section should not only talk about whether her films were a hit or a flop as those facts are already on the film's page. The article should talk about Rani as an actor if this is an encyclopedia which should note her chronology. For example, what important thing did she do in August 2005, she turned down Namesake. So, films she could not do, must be mentionned since it estimates how busy she was and why she left a great opportunity. Finally, roles are important. The preparation done is needed to be put into the article. So, please do not delete these statements. - User:shez_15

What is this?! Why have you blanked half of the page? Where is the career success? OMG, without any prior talk or discussion. I respect your opinions, but you have to share them before doing any further and of course so significant edits. Xcentaur, Shez_15, Pa_7 and myself took part in the building of the page. We discussed a lot. I just came. I have to look over this. I'll comment latter. Best Regards, Shshshsh 19:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL First make up your mind whether I have made her look less successful or more. Let Pa7 and Plumcouch come on board and we can look to have some balance here for currently all there was on the page was fan fare. This too has been discussed earlier there is no "blanking" but irrelevant stuff like "Rani's tanned new look" and 'Rani was approached for the Namesake but could not take it on due to dates" and "rani was prepared for this role by talking to her mom" and "Rani was signed on for this film on her birthday" which is irrelevant to her career or her success/ lack of it. Let's talk about what she has done, let's have some succesful films mentioned and some failures but not who said what on what day and not every article/ gossip that has been published about her incorporated into an article. List this on the bollywood cinema discussion group, on the India discussion group and let's get some fresh perspective to this as the current positions are diametrically opposite. Haphar 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Plumcouch has been away from Wikipedia for quite some time now, while Pa7 is on vacation as well. None of us know when either will return.

I support the removal of all this tanned look and other irrelevant details, however I strongly oppose the removal of film details from her career section. I would also strongly support this discussion being taken to the the India discussion group and/or Bollywood Cinema discussion group. No doubt, a fresh perspective would be helpful. xC | ☎ 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion

I'd like to comment on every sentence/content/detail which was removed. If we don't do this now, There will be another edit war once the page is unprotected.

Here are the removals of Haphar (talk · contribs) and my opinions whether they should be kept or not:

• Known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood. Don't know why, but this statement is a cause of very much of arguments between users who edit the pages of Rani, Preity and Aishwarya. Some sources tell that and other that. Aishwarya is regarded as the highest paid. Shez says Rani is, and tomorrow someone will say it's Amisha Patel actually. One can never know the matter of these payments. Remove.

• Her performance in the song "Aati Kya Khandala" received rave reviews, caught the attention of the masses - If I had been a reader who reads this article for the first time, I would have thought you're talking here about a film, and not a song. Are songs notable for actors who perform them in the film? I can't see nothing notable here, to be honest. Actresses always get part in films which include hit songs. Dixit was famous for Ek Do Teen, Didi tera, Shilpa was famous for Churake Dil Mera, Preity for Jiya Jale etc etc. Remove.

• After her instant stardom, you replaced with After her success - OK fine.

• Both her films Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega (2000), Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye (2000) and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke (2001) did average business respectively. - The films were neither successful nor critically acclaimed. Remove.

• In 2002, Mujhse Dosti Karoge! opposite Hrithik Roshan was her first film with the Yash Raj Films production house in India. Although, the movie did not do well in India, it generated great business overseas, especially in the United Kingdom - Here I disagree. The movie was a flop, but we don't list only hit films in the career section. The movie has to be mentioned for two reasons: A. It marks her entry into YRF. B. It was a hit oversies. Remain

• About Saathiya being acclaimed: The film was critically appreciated, and earned her a myriad of honors and rave reviews. - It is necessary here. It was a kind of comeback for Mukerji. Apart from, her role in the film is considered as one of her finest performances to date. Remain.

• At the end of the year, Mukerji ventured into her first comic role, in Chori Chori - I saw the film. Comic or not. It is one of her most non-notable films, in the Box office, and in general as well. Remove.

• her makeover for the role was also widely noted., Mukerji signed the movie on her parents' request who wanted her to present the reality of widows in India, the focus of the film, She went through intense training to slim down for the role, to portray a modern look., Saawarya on her birthday - And more and more content about her look, designers, fashion is completely unneeded. Remove.

• When Bhansali first came to Mukerji with the offer, she turned it down. Mukerji stated that she was not confident enough to play such a role as she had no knowledge on the deaf and blind. Once the director put faith in her, she agreed to do it and intensely studied sign language with professionals. To prepare for her role in Black, she had to go through six to seven months of training at the Hellen Keller Institute in Mumbai. - It is important. Her role in the film was super acclaimed. We have to write that she won awards. The preparation for this difficult role is very important like in other pages of foreign film actors. The work behind the film is part of her career for all intents and purposes. One section of 3 lines is nothing. We have to add further information about Black. As per Box Office India, the Box Office official site, B&B wasn't the biggest hit of the year. It was the second highest grossing. Reamain.

• Mukerji was offered the lead role in Hollywood film, The Namesake but owing to clashing dates with Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, she couldn't commit to Mira Nair's project. - For an Indian actress it is an honour being offered a role for a Hollywood/foreign film. We don't mention every film which crosses our way. Just a notable film like this. Remain.

• Mukerji instantly agreed to do this movie as she could identify the character's situation in a family crisis and has modelled her performance on her own mother - I'm not sure for this. But I can't see any problem in writing where did an actor get his inspiration from for this or another film. I don't know for now.

• Mukerji took piano lessons to get her posture and finger movements accurate, as she plays a pianist in the movie. - Here I agree with you. This role is not as notable as the deaf-blind Michelle McNally in Black. There is nothing special in this role. Remove.

• An unprecedented Rs. 4 million was paid to Mukerji for her role in the movie. - I don't really know. Do whatever you find right to do. In this case I'm shut.

• Hence, the actress was honored by a largely foreign audience of 50,000 at the Casablanca Film Festival (2005) in Morocco where four of her movies were presented. - I think film festivals are well deserved to be mentioned, but this one is already on the awards. Decide - either here or there.

• She was offered Mani Ratnam's Dil Se but could not act in it as dates were a problem. - I still doubt whether she was really offered the role. In any case, it's an old film and it's not Hollywood like The Namesake.

OK, please share your opinions on my suggestions. Best Regards, --Shshshsh 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with the list in large, there are a few points I disagree with, ( ie Black- so much of a big deal about a copied movie) but in order to keep the discussions polite and short will concede. Haphar 14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Haphar, feel free to discuss everything you agree or disagree with. That's why I'm here. You don't have to concede just because you want to avoid disputes.

About Black. I think that's the only film which really deserves background description. The film is copied, but the performances were brilliant. I'll disagree too, if someone says that we have to do it for every film (like the last TRRP). Black really constitutes a hard work of time and experience. She could not have enacted a deaf-blind role without any preparation. That's what I think, and if you have some hesitations regarding this, please share. Logical reasons are always welcome.

If there are still some points you disagree with (there are a few points I disagree with), please share...

Best Regards, --Shshshsh 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think the following statement is unnecessary: In 2005, after being on the Filmfare's Power List as the only woman in the February 2005 issue, Mukerji finally declared in an interview with "After Hrs" that she is the top actress in the country. - She said that she is Number 1. So what? What's notable here? I read that Aamir Khan also said that... So what? does it make Rani or Aamir number 1? What do you think? --Shshshsh 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes a lot of guts to say that aloud. And we're not saying that makes them No.1. But it denotes that they do think they are. People can agree and disagree but the facts need to be stated about what the actor quoted if references are available. Plus, Rani's not the person who would make a fool of herself. She must know the statistics before saying anything like this. It's not even important if it's true or not. It's important to state what she said in that important interview. Like her interview in Controversies. That's noted there about Hitler despite her ignoring the statement, so why not this?- shez_15

Wow I see Rani has a lot of guts to say what she wants to say, but she says different things every every day. There is nothing notable in saying that. Best regards, --Shshshsh 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine

OK I have recently made the accepted points by Haphar and me. Are there any problems? Please discuss before editing again to prevent an edit war. Best Regards, --Shshshsh 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, the article looks OK. I would propose to move the polls to the awards and nominations page because they are trivial and really should belong in the awards article. I would also propose that details on film notes should be in the film article and not the actors article. Such as BR Chopra celebrating 50 years for his production house. How is that relevant to Rani Mukerji? It does not belong in this article. I have done the same for Preity Zinta's article such as the fact that Salaam Namaste was filmed in Australia, how is that relevant to her? Opinions would be helpful. -- Pa7 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with you Pa7! It was unnecessary in both the pages of Zinta and Mukerji.

details on film notes should be in the film article and not the actors article. - We have to go according to this.

Mmmm polls... I don't know. I think it is good to use it in the article as long as it appears in a suitable section like the previous Popularity or the current In the media in Zinta's page (see Tom Cruise). Having a separated section for POLLS is unnecessary and even good to avoid. It is unencyclopedical. Best regards, Shshshsh 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pa7. Polls should go to the awards page since they're biased as are awards since a jury decides. And each award ceremony mostly gives away awards to different people and there is no clear-cut winner. Thus, awards page is all hype and so are polls. Better put up against each other. I also agree that topics on films should be mentionned in the film articles instead of cluttering the actor's page. Now, what concerns me is the role preparation. Harphar doesn't want that at all. I feel it's quite important if there are some references or sources for it. What say? Best Regards, shez_15

Also, though not a deep concern regarding this page, but for future references, it's better to check when putting a reference where some critic made remarks. As suggested by the Bollywood celebrities and film makers that the critics of India aren't true critics. Most of them don't know their job. They just provide the story line and put actor was good or bad. That's not what critics are supposed to do if you read some unbiased hard-core Hollywood critics. Thus, be careful. And also, I feel we shouldn't add critical acclaim to every film. Since most Bollywood movies are made for commercial reasons and not to gain critical acclaim. Thus, critical acclaim should be noted for films which do get it and not to be mentionned for every film which do not. Except when they are made to get critical acclaim, like in the case of Black or Kya Kehna, and if it doesn't, then it should be noted there was no critical acclaim. - shez_ 15

• Polls are largely subjective. I support their inclusion on the seperate page of awards.
• If role preps are such a bone of contention, throw em out of this page, but integrate them with the relevant film article.
• It is extremely difficult to decide which critics are notable enough/unbiased/dependable. For a role which got an actor critical acclaim, it is worth mentioning, for sure. As I have pointed out before in other talk pages as well, success can be either commercial and/or critical. Haphar's removal of statements regarding her critical success created a void in the article, where only her commercial successes are noted. Clearly, this leaves the article incomplete, so I would support keeping critical commentary (positive or negative, as the case may be) in the article.
• Another thing - this edit by Shez removed the fact that the film was critically panned, noting i don't think critically panned is necessary, since the movie is made for commercial reasons, not to receive rave reviews. This is completely off the mark - some film-makers make movies only for commercial success, not all. Similary, some actors only work for commercial success and don't care whether or not they are appreciated critically. There are tons of films which were panned critically, but did very well commercially, for example the Lara Croft series. We are not here to decide with what purpose the film-maker made the film. We are simply supposed to note the critics' and box-office reaction. Therefore that removal by Shez was wrong.xC | ☎ 09:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes xC, you're right. I don't even think that filmmakers make films for this or another reason. Every filmmaker wants commercialy success, as well as critical appreciation. Hum Tum for example, was a hit. Moreover, Saif Ali Khan won the National Film Award and Rani all the other. Every new film is delivered to everyone's view and judgement. TRRP wasn't SUPER acclaimed. It was well received by critics and by box office earnings as well. So overall, it did well.

OK, the Black preparation appears already in its own page. However, I think background description for a role like michelle in Black, is worthy of mention here too. I think it's important to write on her preparation and hard work in her own page since it is part of her work and her career. It wasn't a preparation of one week, it was a hard work of half a year experience. She could not have enacted a deaf-blind role without any preparation like this. Do whatever you wanna do regarding this. In this case, I'm out.

Mmm polls. She has In The Media section. We can shift it there (like in Tom Cruise's page). In fact, we are not removing nothing. The awards page is a kind of expanded section which is separated from the page. If you want, shift it there.

Best regards, --Shshshsh 11:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not shifting anything anywhere - I am terribly disillusioned by the entire process.

Best of luck for all the bollywood articles,xC | ☎ 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I didn't really understand. What did you mean by disillusioned by the entire process and Best of luck for all the bollywood articles. Best regards, --Shshshsh 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It means I wish you best of luck in improving all the Bollywood articles. Until we have a set of guidelines/policies to look to, us editors are going to keep having these merry-go-round discussions that (more often than not) deal with the same issues over and over again.

I posted on Jolie's talk page - a featured article's talk page and no-one cares enough to reply to a genuine question regarding the content. Disconcerting at the very least, terribly demotivating at the very best.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. We don't have any progress here. But I also think that we are a very little group of editors here. We need more opinions to be added. Plumcouch, Zora, Haphar and more, were working on these pages earlier, and now they've dissapeared. That's a problem, since we can't get to a definite solution. Best of luck to you as well. Best regards, --Shshshsh 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's disappeared, watching things and as demonstrated (yet again) things can be discussed many times here, but one user will try and sneak in all the things back over a period of time-leading to disputes again. And the user had the gall to accuse me of not listening Haphar 08:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good. I just don't believe that some critics are doing a good job. We need to find some dedicated and reputed critics which are only a few in India. From what I've heard, everyone has said that the acting was great by everyone in the movie. So, I don't see why we have to write "critically panned" when Rani's acting was appreciated. The film critic should be on the film's page, not the actor's. - shez_15

LoL, I really like this Shehzad. When it comes to say that she was critically acclaimed for Black, it's OK. BUT, when it comes to say that TRRP was critically panned - it's wrong. Is there some1 who can get his mind? --Shshshsh 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that from what I've heard the performances are critically acclaimed, so it's unfair to note down critically panned. I think if the movie is critically panned, then it should go in its article, not in the actor's limited page. The actor's performances should be noted if critically acclaimed or not. - shez_15

Unaccepted removals

Here are the removals of Haphar (talk · contribs) and my opinions whether they should be kept or not:

• Known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood. It's true she is one of the highest paid. Doesn't say "the highest paid". And there is no comparison to any other actress. Keep.

• Her performance in the song "Aati Kya Khandala" received rave reviews, caught the attention of the masses - As we all know songs are integral to a Bollywood movie. And in Rani's case, this is how the masses got to know her face by looking at the song on television as it was the number one song for many months on the charts. I know this is how I saw her first and I never saw the movie since it was banned in Pakistan. This is how a lot of people got to see her from television. And from the song, you picked up the name Khandala Girl as Rani Mukerji's name didn't appear in the video. I know songs are not listed on wikipedia except the recent Kajra Re on Ash's page. But in short, this song made Rani an identity since the movie was not that notable. Keep.

• After her instant stardom, you replaced with After her success - OK fine.

• Both her films Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega (2000), Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye (2000) and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke (2001) did average business respectively. - The films were neither successful nor critically acclaimed. Remove if you don't want to mention each and every film. Maybe we can say at that time, she was mostly working with Salman Khan (3 movies at the time), Bobby Deol (2) and Govinda (3).

• In 2002, Mujhse Dosti Karoge! opposite Hrithik Roshan was her first film with the Yash Raj Films production house in India. Although, the movie did not do well in India, it generated great business overseas, especially in the United Kingdom - Here I disagree. The movie was a flop, but we don't list only hit films in the career section. The movie has to be mentioned for two reasons: A. It marks her entry into YRF. B. It was a hit oversies. Remain

• About Saathiya being acclaimed: The film was critically appreciated, and earned her a myriad of honors and rave reviews. - It is necessary here. It was a kind of comeback for Mukerji. Apart from, her role in the film is considered as one of her finest performances to date. Remain.

• At the end of the year, Mukerji ventured into her first comic role, in Chori Chori - Even though the movie was a disaster, it marks her first comic role. And for an actress, stepping into a different genre is an important step. Keep.

• her makeover for the role was also widely noted., Mukerji signed the movie on her parents' request who wanted her to present the reality of widows in India, the focus of the film, She went through intense training to slim down for the role, to portray a modern look., Saawarya on her birthday - It shows the reason behind why she signed these movies and the occurence of the time. If no one wants these details on her page, maybe it's better to move it to the movie page since it's not garbage news.

• When Bhansali first came to Mukerji with the offer, she turned it down. Mukerji stated that she was not confident enough to play such a role as she had no knowledge on the deaf and blind. Once the director put faith in her, she agreed to do it and intensely studied sign language with professionals. To prepare for her role in Black, she had to go through six to seven months of training at the Hellen Keller Institute in Mumbai. - It is important. Her role in the film was super acclaimed. We have to write that she won awards. The preparation for this difficult role is very important like in other pages of foreign film actors. The work behind the film is part of her career for all intents and purposes. One section of 3 lines is nothing. We have to add further information about Black. As per Box Office India, the Box Office official site, B&B wasn't the biggest hit of the year. It was the second highest grossing. Keep.

• Mukerji was offered the lead role in Hollywood film, The Namesake but owing to clashing dates with Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, she couldn't commit to Mira Nair's project. - For an Indian actress it is an honour being offered a role for a Hollywood/foreign film. We don't mention every film which crosses our way. Just a notable film like this. Keep.

• Mukerji instantly agreed to do this movie as she could identify the character's situation in a family crisis and has modelled her performance on her own mother - From where the actor derives their inspiration is notable. Keep.

• Mukerji took piano lessons to get her posture and finger movements accurate, as she plays a pianist in the movie. - Even though, the role is not as notable as the deaf-blind Michelle McNally in Black, it still shows some preparation, the kind of research and practice needed. Keep.

• Hence, the actress was honored by a largely foreign audience of 50,000 at the Casablanca Film Festival (2005) in Morocco where four of her movies were presented. - Great Honour for an actress. 50,000 people is a big number. Keep in article.

• She was offered Mani Ratnam's Dil Se but could not act in it as dates were a problem. - It's an old film and it's not Hollywood like The Namesake. Plus, she's been offered many more movies, not all of them mentionned. Remove.

OK, please share your opinions on my suggestions. Best Regards, --User:shez_15 23:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm.. I don't want to sound bad, but it seems that everything that was removed has just been added back again. I think the article still needs alot of work.

• She was offered Mani Ratnam's Dil Se but could not act in it as dates were a problem. - Remove

• Her mother told her to do the role, so what? She's an actress, she probably gets inspiration from loads things, just because it's her mother no need to include.

• The Aati Kya Khandala stuff - remove, for someone to get noticed for a song is quite trivial. I've never actually heard anyone call her that personally. I don't think it was the song which made her popular.

• At the end of the year, Mukerji ventured into her first comic role, in Chori Chori - the film was a disaster, and she's an actress who will do different types of roles in her career, we can't mention all the different roles. I think we should mention the one's that made the impact such as her role in Black

• her makeover for the role was also widely noted., Mukerji signed the movie on her parents' request who wanted her to present the reality of widows in India, the focus of the film, She went through intense training to slim down for the role, to portray a modern look., Saawarya on her birthday - Again, she's an actress who will go through many changes for a role, if the makeover is regarding TRRP, then I really don't see why this needs mentioning.

• Mukerji was offered the lead role in Hollywood film, The Namesake but owing to clashing dates with Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, she couldn't commit to Mira Nair's project. - I agree this should be kept, because it was a Hollywood film and for a Indian actress to be offered a Hollywood flick is brilliant.

Personally, everything that was removed, has been slowly added back into the article. So, any other suggestions would be good, I'd also suggest that no-one edit on the page for a while until the issues are resolved -- Pa7 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with everything. I don't find the point here. I gave my suggestions above, Haphar agreed and that's the end of the story. But Shez added his new suggestions (when some of them made by cut and copy from my suggestions) and "suggested" to return ALL the content removed by Haphar. I tried to help but that's senseless. Xcentaur and myself are discussing now everything from pages of Preity and Rani. He/She tries to make progress, but the page hasn't yet been progressed, and he/she does not have the time and the intent to come and discuss the same things. As I see, Shez found my comments useless or insignificant. That's why I didn't discuss here on his "Suggestions" when he turned to me. I'm tired. If I were you Shez, I wouldn't write "suggestions". "Revert to last version before Haphar" sounds better for this. Thanks Pa7. Best regards, --Shshshsh 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, just because two editors found some statements to be not worth mentionning, doesn't mean you walk over someone's work. I've been working on this page for more than three years now. I wasn't included in the decision. As soon as the lock got removed from the page, you simply edited on Haphar's version. It would have been wiser to revert first and remove whatever again. But it seems to me Shshsh just wanted to remove everything from her page. Aati Kya Khandala is what made her famous initially. I don't care if you don't believe this. But do read the reference. And there are ten more of those I can find for you. Xcentaur and I who have worked mostly on the page in the recent times were not even given the time to approve those removals. I suggest you carefully read what I wrote above since those are valid points. Till then, let's not revert anything. And where is Haphar? I thought he cared for the page. He doesn't even pay attention to the page on a day-to-day basis. Why would his consent on removing anything be approved? I don't get it. Pa_7, plz state your opinions for now. - shez_15

Shez you're a nice guy and I do understand your anger, but the fact is that everyone is free to work here and everyone has equal rights to contribute here, whether he is working three or ten years here, whether he stands here daily or weekly (or yearly). I tried to prevent another edit war, but you don't get it. Best regards, --Shshshsh 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It just seems that everything has been added back without any resolution to the problem. There are some editors that do not agree with the content on the page. Yes, they are well sourced but totally un-neccessary. Like her makeover in Chalte Chalte - not needed. Most of the content is not needed, yet it is still in the page. Nearly a year ago there was a huge discussion regarding this page because it was full of fancruft. If someone does not agree with the content on the page, then they have a right to voice their concerns. If I had to, I would have edited on the page, but I did not because I know one certain editor would be upset. I really think the page should be protected because certain editors keep editing without any prior discussion. All that stuff that was removed, is back in and it was not even discussed. -- Pa7 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The agreed upon removals have also been put back, and by the same user who insisted on discussions before change. If one editor is not going to listen to the discussion here, it would mean a free for all and start an edit war again. And it is 3 editors who agree that the material needs to be removed and not two. And it was discussed here what is to be removed. If its unilateral editing then I think the protection should be back Haphar 10:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To be completely honest, after reading the discussions above, I still wasn't clear which parts would we removed and which not. While there was some common ground, no doubt, there were polar views on quite a few things.

I realise this is a bit tedious, but I believe we should take this section by section, discuss whatever needs to be removed and do so. These articles are turning into timesinks, lets speed up things. Lets discuss the lead first, then career and so on. If we take it one by one, things can be cleared up properly, and we'll have no further wars on the article(s).

If anyone has any other suggestions to make things work here, I'm sure we're all ears. Regards,xC | ☎ 17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No one discussed on why it should be removed. Shshsh simply put he wanted some statements removed and the next day, they were removed without the approval of other editors. It's getting confusing now with other editors putting in gossip on her engagement. Let's just go section by section. I agree with Xc. Now, Haphar, why do you want the Rs. 5 billion statement removed from the intro? It's a fact. What's wrong with it? Let's start with the intro. - User:shez_15

No one discussed on why it should be removed - Haphar discussed. I'v added my suggestions. Pa7 also suggested to remove all kinds of fangush. So how can you say that?

I also think box-office impact is non-notable. More than 40 actresses have box office impact higher than Rs. 5 billion. So what?

And please stop adding the very foolish statement about her saying that she is number one. What are you intending to do with this? Best regards, --Shshshsh 10:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with fangush removals

I'm fine with a few of the removals only because I don't want to fight on petty issues. But her tag of Khandala Girl still exists today. Here's a game show where they ask people on the streets about Rani Mukerji. It's 20 mins long and a lot of them still know her as Khandala Girl, thus it stays in the article.[2] And I don't know why are you after her box office results of the year 2005. Why was Black report removed? I think there were 86 references before Haphar randomly took out most of the stuff making it to 68 references. Now they are 75 references which means I am okay with most of the removals. I hope we don't have to argue anymore. - shez_15

What? We are not here to count ref. Laughable.

Stop with this stupid Khandala girl.

Black wasn't a hit. It was a mistake. You are using different sites one after another according to what is more suitable for you. According to Box Office India, Black was an average performer, and B&B the second highest Grossing. There is a difference between nett gross and film status. These lists are just bringing nett gross description. B&B was a hit, while No Entry was a super hit + the highest grossing. I can also bring refs indicating Black was not a hit.

BTW, you said once, we can't write that TRRP was critically panned, since it was made for commercial purposes. Black was the opposite. It was not a film for Box-Office. Anyway it doesn't matter. Even here [3] you can see Even the super acclaimed Black couldn't bring in the dough --Shahid • ^Talk2me 03:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all the stuff about her makeover and fangush such as "superstars" -- this is very biased, and cannot be used in this article. I definently do not agree with this sentence: Her performance in the song "Aati Kya Khandala" received rave reviews, caught the attention of the masses[5] and lead to the tag 'Khandala Girl. The song made her noticed but it is very trivial to say that. Isn't it just enough to say the film did well? I have not removed it for now but any opinions with this would be helpful -- Pa7 13:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Shshshsh, in which interview did you read that Black was not made for commercial purposes? If you could forward me a link of the same, I would be grateful.

Secondly, TRRP was critically panned. Period. How you judge the film and what you believe its purposes were do not change the fact that it was critically panned.xC | ☎ 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No matter now. I didn't read. I saw the documentary film of Black. But it doesn't really matter. The matter is that Black was not a hit, in spite of it being a brilliant film. It was an average performer at the box-office. And yes, boxofficeindia.com is the official site for Indian box-office. We have been using that for the last 2-3 years. I do think IbosNetWork is good but not as reliable as boxofficeindia.com.

How you judge the film and what you believe its purposes were do not change the fact that it was critically panned - I don't really know what you want. I think the same. WHAT'S THE MATTER? Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Chori Chori. I don't know what's the co-relation. The movie flopped. The film was neither critically acclaimed nor commercially successful (in fact, it did the opposite). It is one of the most non-notable and forgotten roles/films of Mukerji. And there is nothing special in making first comic role, unless she gets a nomination for Best comedian. Every actor gets into a new kind of roles every year, whether it's a comic, dramatic, villainous, historical or psychological role. All as one. This one was non-notable. Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The matter is I strongly oppose this argument of yours that (apparently) because a film wasn't made for critical appeal, its critical comments (negative in this case) shouldn't be included. In short, whether the film was made for the front-benchers or art critics, it doesn't matter, its critical appreciation (negative or positive) should be included. Therefore to say that critically panned bit should be removed because it wasn't a film made to play to the critics, the argument doesn't hold water.xC | ☎ 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I didn't say that we should not include critical comments. And BTW, there are awards to provide critical appreciation/criticism. You could never write Hum Tum was critically panned, even if you found some article on the net indicating that, cause the actors were awarded for their roles. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if a jury found a film good enough to award for best actor/actress, it does count for something, although due to their very nature I'm suspicious of several popular awards since their selection and grading criteria aren't all that transparent. But thats just me, I look for logic in everything. Such things don't apply to Bollywood :P

Anyhow, I wasn't arguing with you. I simply expressed my opposition to a particular argument. I honestly do not know whether it was yours or anyone elses, I don't read this article talk page any more. If I came across as hostile, my apologies.

What's Haphar's take on this matter, btw?xC | ☎ 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think that Chori Chori should be included in the career section because the 2003 section is a sentence long. It's stupid to say that Rani only had Chalte Chalte in 2003. We need to add something there. It looks stupid with only one sentence. And the movie was not noticed because of its delay. I thought it was a funny movie with good songs and great acting. And it's a great performance by Rani. The movie may not have done well at the box office or it may be critically panned but Rani's performance was praised. [4][5] [6] "Chori Chori is a Rani Mukerji film all the way. The actress pumps life into the gregarious Khushi without making her too boisterous. Her hilarious take off on Bollywood's actors is one of the best moments in the film. Rani flows with the script as she smoothly reveals the happy, vulnerable and emotional facets of her character." She is even mentionned before the actor in every review. I think that is some kind of a notable role for an actress in a male-dominated industry. And it was also her first comic role.And as for critically acclaimed comments, I think we should add if it's critically acclaimed or not only on the film's page. And as for the actor's page, we should add if his/her performance was critically acclaimed or not. Not the movie's acclaim. And as for your ref. on Black, that's an opinion of a journalist, there are no numbers there. - shez_15

All the links you've given saying her performance was praised are also the opinions of individual journalists, are they not?xC | ☎ 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All stuff is put back repeatedly, there is no point in having a discussion, let's get the page protected. At then end of it all the article gets back to where we started the dispute from, there are 3 users here opposing Khandala girl, and it gets back on because 1 user wants it on. What is the point of this discussion then ? Haphar 12:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Khandala Song

First, please read the reference. Once you understand the popularity of the song, you will get why it was such an important uplift for Rani Mukerji. The film is forgettable but the song is still popular. Even Will Smith sang it on Indial Idol 2. I think that speaks volumes. Plus, Rani was noticed from the song, most people haven't even seen the movie. - shez_15

Shez, songs and blayback singing are inseparable aspect in the indian film industry. Very much of songs become famous. It's not a sufficient explanation of yours. Mukerji is known as a good perfomer. It would be stupid to say that she is known as the Khandala girl. Formerly, I used to like this song. And I liked the fact that Aamir Khan was picturised by his own voice. The song was popular, but Rani was also popular for Shava Shava from K3G and more and more and more. But it's really unnecessary to write that here. Regarding Chalte Chalte, it's not accepted by 3 users. Why do you keep adding it? It will cause to an edit war, something that neither me, Hap, xC nor you wanted to happen.

I also think that career sections should not include only hits/major grossers. It's really stupid. Films would be also worthy of mention if they're somehow notable (ie acclaimed performance).I also think films of the last three year should be mentioned, cause we have to give some chronological order. You can't say in 2006 she did KANK. without mentioning Baabul Cause she did Baabul too. When you say She made her first comic role it is really non-notable, unless she is nominated for Best Comedian. However, saying that she plays a prostitute in Laaga Chunari Main Daag/Saawarya, it comes to be more notable, since it is a new kind of character, which she didn't experience before. At all, I'm out of the Chori Chori case. tiresome... --Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself that acclaimed performances should be mentionned. Chori Chori was an acclaimed performance as mentionned in the reference I provided. I just don't know what's the big fuss of removing it. It's just a film. An award doesn't really prove its acclaim. Because her performance in Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega was even nominated, yet not mentionned in her career section. So shouldn't we add it to her career? Again, just because an actor is nominated, doesn't mean the film is worthwhile to mention in career section. Chori Chori has a lot of things that can be said about it, thus important to mention. Plus, we can't just put one sentence for the whole year: 2003. It looks stupid. And I know we can add every song but that song was important since it was one of her first movies and the film didn't do well, she had no identity, the tag Khandala Girl sticked with her for some time until her name Rani Mukerji was a household name. I think tags are important if one has them like JLo for Jennifer Lopez. I'm only putting the song because of the tag which is important. Why don't we remove JLo from Jennifer Lopez's article first? - shez_15

Haphar doesn't care

From his edits [7], one can see he is neglecting the page by adding Success twice as heading to the career section. He just wants to prove a point. I'm sorry but his edits are non-sensical. I've agreed to more than half of his edits and the rest which he has repeatedly removed has been discussed to stay there like the box office net worth. I added new things to the article: Tera Chehra and Filmography chart, yet it was removed without any thought or reading. I think he doesn't care about the article, he just wants to exert his power over the article. Only Chori Chori and Khandala Girl tag was opposed which I've discussed to keep again and again, yet he keeps removing it without the permission of other editors who haven't removed it ever. He's a big problem for this page. - shez_15

Fangush is the only problem on this page, and Shez I have asked you several times to keep to the topic and not get personal and make allegation. I do not see that happening, one more time and I will ask for you getting blocked. Now lets look at nailing some patent misrepresentation by you, please look at this [8] and [9]for some other editors objecting to the Khanadala girl, but you insist on putting it, there are 3 poeple here saying it is not welcome, and I am removing it again, Put it back only if the other two editors agree to your assertions here ( forget me, just get them to agree) that it should be on.

And if you will put it back, I wll ask for a page protection. On what grounds is just your saying/ discussing here over and over again is enough grounds for you to put on something, even though 3 people repeatedly saying that this should not be on. Please take it to an admin if you feel that 1 persons opinion and POV should get precedence. Do not unilaterally put it back, again on Chori Chori, I and Shahid have opposed that entry saying that it is insignificant and is a film that has not done well so no need to mention it. And if you want to put the comments back, get some editors with some edits of repute to intervene.- Someone with more than edits to one actress and her films please. Oh and I did not delete the filmography section, apart from making personal allegations- telling untruths to try and make a point is also not quite done. Haphar 07:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with everything you've done. Chalte Chalte was just non-notable for all intents and purposes. Khandala... The song can be an international hit, but, It is not suitable for Wikipedia. Bollywood actors and playback singing is inseparable parts. Very much of songs go on to become hits.

Haphar you're absolutely right. Just one little thing - I think the success heading should remain like it actually was before. Her real success came in 2003. Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm I also think that television shows should be kept. Formerly, We had a special section for them, and I also think it's unnecessary now. But shows like Koffee With Karan and Indian Idol are popular shows which even have their own articles here on Wiki. Nobody comes to Wikipedia to look for Koffee with Karan. And if these shows do not remain on actors` articles, no-one will be aware of their existance. Readers come to know about such shows via pages of actors who appeared there. Apart from it, the section is named In The Media, and it is actually media. Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

TV shows can have their own articles, look at Jay Leno and other talk shows, even Hindi tv serials have wiki articles, so KWK can have an article, and who were the guests is more relevant there then here. Haphar 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• We need statistics for the statement - Nobody comes to Wikipedia to look for Koffee with Karan. It seems to contradict the sentence - shows like Koffee With Karan and Indian Idol are popular shows
• The sheer number of TV apearances made by Bollywood stars makes it impossible to have a maintainable and up to date list. I've been against TV appearances since the very start, but since Lindsay Lohan (FA) had a similar list, that proved to be the precedent because of which that section was allowed to stay in in this article.xC | ☎ 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still somehow skeptical for different reasons but nevertheless.

So, Lindsay Lohan is a FA, so it's permitted to have these shows in their own section, as part of the Filmography section, and now we have another problem, what shold be included there? And what should not? Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you skeptical about? And the contradiction in your post (as stated above) hasn't yet been resolved.

For the record, I disagree with [[Lindsay Lohan] having that section of TV appearances.xC | ☎ 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Reasons? I know you can say Cause actors appear on TV shows everyday (and BTW I agree) and I can say So let's put shows that have their own articles and it will go on and on... In fact, I don't think that Lindsay appears on TV shows less than Rani.

In fact, that's not the thing that drives me crazy and I don't really disagree with you. I'm just thinking: Some of the best editors have been working on the pages of Shilpa Shetty and Lindsay Lohan, so why not? You said, Lindsay is a FA or GA so what's the problem? Do you think that it should be removed from their article too? Is it permitted on Wikipedia or not? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a friendly reminder, the archived peer review for this article contains a few more suggestions which might help improve it further. The services of Automatic Reviewer might also be useful.

Regards,xC | ☎ 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Official English spelling of her name

What is the official spelling of this actress's name, and what reliable sources do we have for this spelling? I've seen four so far:

• Rani Mukerji
• Rani Mukherji
• Rani Mukerjee
• Rani Mukherjee

I realize there may be variations in Bengali transliteration, but we should have a primary spelling under which this and the corresponding Wikiquote article are listed, with the others listed in the first sentence here and made into redirects. (This last has been done at least.)

I note that a prominent fan website is "rani-mukerji.com", while IMDb, usually our first independent source for film-industry information, uses "Rani Mukherjee". Can we dig up something official? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Per her interview in which she states that she changed her name to Mukerji to be consistent with the English transliteration on her passport, it would seem that her (legal) name is Rani Mukerji. You can Google up this interview, its available all over.

The rest are all merely different spellings of the same name. I don't see an issue either way, but since she's stated that Mukerji is her name now, it would be best to use that in the article (and all related pages).xC | ☎ 08:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

There are instances of extremely bad sourcing being employed in this article. To be fair, this is a characteristic of quite a few Bollywood actor bios on Wikipedia. I will correct this when I get a chance and begin serious editing when I get some time, probably next week or slightly afterwards. Ekantik ^talk 02:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by bad sourcing? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources look reliable. I can't see any references from blogs or anything. With some copy editing, minor tone addressing and minor improvements this should be up to GA, thanks to the dedication of Mr. Dreamz. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 12:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Too much details

The stuff put back has too many details, this is an article on Rani Mukherjee and not "what roles has Rani done" so the character she plays etc etc is not required for all films, a few should suffice ,a critical review does not need a few lines on her as well as the charachter in every casea mention of the film + the critics comments should suffice. As of now there are too many comments on roles and movies and critics comments. Can we drop some of the insignificant ones ? If one wants to put the details there is always the films page to add on more details. Haphar (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes by Rahul

I disagree with some of the copyedits:

• Biyar Phool does not deserve a mention as it was just a rather inconsequential song appearance.
• Ghulam is not her first leading role. Raja Ki Aayengi Baraat is.
• She did not "star" in KKHH.
• Mukerji has not been part of several commercially and critically successful films since Black. Most of her film of this period failed, so we'll need a better way to write it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Jamiawala (talk · contribs)'s edits are pure glorification and POV. His version resembles a fansite, with such claims like: "She has often been touted as the best actress of her generation", "She is considered as one of India's most versatile female actors". He/she removed any negative commentary that was there, replacing it with such claims as "she received acclaim for her performances" (in the most unsuccessful period of her career - 1999-2002). Also, he added unreliable sources like bollywoodchaska.com/blog/. Totally unacceptable. Taking a read through WP:POV, WP:NOT, WP:CITE, WP:RS, would help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since she acted in KANK, and till No one killed Jessica, almost all of her films (though few) were commercial failures, and received generally poor reviews by critics. I think this should be mentioned better; There were many people who called an end to her career. I think this should be mentioned. Right now, mostly her good films are mentioned. What say? Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, I remember several critics were writing her off. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No One Killed Jessica

Positive

Taran Adarsh: In the role of a spirited and audacious journo, Rani, who smokes non-stop, flings swear words every now and then and who rebuffs being a voiceless spectator when the culprits go scot-free, is simply exceptional. Rajeev Masand: Rani Mukherjee, despite being saddled with a cliché of a character, is more cinematically engaging, and knows exactly how to command the screen with her presence. Komal Nahta: Rani Mukerji does a fine job, getting into the skin of the character of the fiesty journalist who has no qualms about speaking her heart out and using swear words at the drop of a hat. Khalid Mohammed: As the cussing-smoking-know-all media star, Rani Mukherjee, returns to fine form. You can’t take your eyes off her, even in a casual scene in which she informs her father on the phone, that she can look after herself, thank you very much. Mid-Day: Mukerji is the hero of the film - with the crackling chutzpah and clap-worthy lines. She does to NOKJ what Sunny Deol did to Damini - she brings the screen on fire in the second half.

Negative Anupama Chopra: For me, the fatal, false note in No One Killed Jessica is Meera, the fictionalised tough-talking reporter played by Rani Mukherjee. Meera is a strong, independent woman who, at least in this version, single-handedly prods the establishment into reviewing the case. So she smokes, swears and has sex.

Seems like overall it was positively received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywood shollywood (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jeetzzz, 23 June 2011

Jeetzzz (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please mention what you want changed. Lynch7 17:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Query

Why is the edit option on the top of the article page not there? Its there in other articles I noticed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.144.102 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is protected to new users. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rani's new movie Aiyaa is not mentioned in her page.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ranis-film-with-prithviraj-titled-aaiya/851152/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.2 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by anon

The recent edits by anon 142.157.116.23 (talk · contribs) are total funcraft.

• First, I was shocked at how he/she blatantly had copied full sentences and phrases from other actresses' pages word for word (including that she is an activist when she is not, including of the Bharat Shah case which has no relevance or mention on this page), which is definitely not done and unacceptable.
• Socondly, everything is unsurprisingly written from a fan's point of view (Just thinking about such phrases as "Mukerji was the new starlet of the nation",
• Original research: Veer Zaara's Saamiya's "mission in life is to pave the path for women's empowerment in Pakistan"
• Many unreliable sources like oneindia.in, bollyspice.com, smashits.com, bollywoodworld.com, glamsham.com, sawfnews.com, india-server.com, newskerala.com, forevermark.com, pinkvilla.com, bollyone.com, whatiexpect.in, hindifilmnews.com... many more.
• Removal of properly sourced controversy without explanation.
• "the physically challenged children of the Helen Keller Institute as they organised a birthday party for her" - how exactly is it considered in any way social activism? How are random appearances on stage at certain parties relevant here? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Saathiya

• BBC "As for Rani Mukerjee, she plays the character of a middle class girl with great conviction."
• Variety "Oberoi makes a likable, unnarcissistic Aditya and pairs well with the vivacious, husky-voiced Mukherji, 24, who's at the top of her game as the all-or-nothing Suhani."
• Rediff "Rani Mukherji's role is not as demanding as Vivek Oberoi's. Both of them seem to share a comfortable relationship with each other, which translates well on screen." "He [Shaad Ali] brings out good performances from the actors."
• IndiaFM "Rani Mukherji is efficient. She looks pretty and does her part with conviction."
• Khalid Mohamed: "a sensitively nuanced performance"

Majority Opinion (Result): All of the reviews indicate that Mukerji performed her role well. Furthermore, she won the Filmfare Critics Award for Best Performance as well as received several nominations for Best Actress at various award ceremonies. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 03:20, 1 Janaury 2008 (UTC)

Laaga Chunari Mein Daag

• Rediff: "Rani is hardly allowed to flash that smile -- the one that usually works despite the film around it -- as she weeps copious tears and calls herself Natasha, after combating off sleazy call-centre bosses, the kind who keeps 30k in banknotes in his desk drawer."
• BBC "Having cornered the market in destitute characters, Rani Mukerji demonstrates precisely why she is Bollywood's reigning queen with another poignant performance in Pradeep Sarkar's Laaga Chunari Mein Daag."
• NDTV "Rani Mukherjee is luminous as the cheerful small town girl who becomes a hollow shell of herself."
• Times of India "Actually, you don’t mind because the film solely belongs to Rani and Konkona, truly an empowered sibling show. Forgive the regressive tone all you feminists and modern males, watch the film merely for its performances."
• Businessofcinema "Rani does justice to her role and never falters whether as a simpleton from Benaras or as a sophisticated girl. She slips into these characters with ease and panache."
• TIMESNOW.tv "The cast is good, especially Rani Mukherji who has perfected the haunted sadness look."
• Indian Express "Rani holds the film together, even if her part, both as the ingénue and the hooker, doesn’t have freshness."
• IndiaFM "Rani excels yet again. It's a pleasure watching her in an author-backed role yet again."
• Full Hyderabad "Mukherjee gets to bite her teeth into the lead role, and though she does not disappoint, she doesn’t rise above her usual weepy, serious self for the most part."
• IBN Live "It's left to Rani Mukherjee eventually, to pump credibility into what is undoubtedly one of her worst written roles yet. And although Rani does perform competently, it's sadly not enough to save this tragic film from its doomed fate."

Majority Opinion (Result): All of the reviews indicate that Mukerji performed her role well despite criticizing the movie. Most of them indicate that her performance was good despite the flaws in the movie's script. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 03:47, 1 Janaury 2008 (UTC)

• (My take on the reviews): Some reviews praise her, some don't praise her, some are moderate, Rediff criticises. Yes, most of them say she did well. The result is: generally well-received. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna

• Rediff "While Rani is laden with flaky dialogues that most actresses would balk at, the actress manages to provide a realistic character, as far as her words allow. Unforgivable scenes are suddenly salvaged by Ms Mukerji breaking into a teary grin, and for that we must thank her."
• Same Rediff "Rani is competent but one hardly tends to sympathise with her character."
• BBC "Rani Mukerjee once again takes the trophy as Bollywood's best actress. If she did well in the film, Black, here she goes one step further as her talent exudes infinitely."
• IBN Live "Rani looks a million bucks and she dives under the skin of her character to make that part one that we will remember for a long time."
• IndiaFM "Rani is remarkable yet again. In fact, if you consider BLACK to be her most memorable performance so far, then watch her in KABHI ALVIDA NAA KEHNA. This surpasses her work in BLACK or VEER-ZAARA and PAHELI. Her makeup as well as her overall appearance is tremendous. She's never looked as good before!"
• Express India "As for Rani, there’s not much to look forward to. A cleanliness freak, Rani must have taken lessons from her role in Chalte Chalte. But after her breath-taking role in Black, Rani fails to add to add fervor to Maya."

Majority Opinion (Result): 5 out of the 6 reviews praise Mukerji's performance. Furthermore, she received several nominations for Best Actress at various award ceremonies, as well as earned the IIFA Best Actress Award for the third consecutive year. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 18:46, 25 Janaury 2008 (UTC)

Veer-Zaara

• IndiaFM "Rani Mukerji is a scene-stealer. The actress takes giant strides with this role, relying completely on her expressions to do her job."
• The Hindu "...there are such good performances, especially from Preity and Rani."
• BBC "As for the gritty, yet insecure lawyer Rani, she isn't far behind though. Of the two, (Preity & Rani) hers is the shorter role but far more challenging. She is a revelation in some of the confrontational scenes. Like Shah Rukh, she too is bound to win some accolades at the award ceremonies next year."
• Rediff "...Rani Mukherjee walks away with the best lines and a performance full of grit."
• The Tribune "Rani Mukherjee, who plays a Pakistani lawyer, forcefully asserts her skills."
• Variety "and she's (Preity Zinta) balanced on the distaff side by a quietly dignified perf from Mukerji as the Pakistani lawyer, who also has something of her own to prove."

Majority Opinion (Result): All the reviews indicate that Mukerji has performed her role well. Furthermore, she received several nominations for Best Supporting Actress at various award ceremonies, as well as earned the IIFA Best Supporting Actress Award for her performance in the film. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 21:09, 25 Janaury 2008 (UTC)

Ta Ra Rum Pum

(Positive)

• Express India "Rani is Rani. Remarkable till the end. Although the 'cool college going girl' before marriage is not what Rani has done too often, the actor does carry it with strength and poise. But beyond the transformation, there is just one word to describe her – dignified!"
• BBC "Rani Mukerji portrays Radhika's transformation from a music student to a mature and conscientious mother/wife with great proficiency. This actress is a natural."
• IndiaFM "Rani enacts the role of the mother/wife proficiently."
• Rediff "Rani Mukerji's Radhika is a confident lady. There is a certain polish in her taste and thoughts. Self-assurance comes naturally to the actress. And for this role, she makes the most of it. Also, there is just one word to describe Surily Goel's wardrobe for Rani: WOW!"
• Hindustan Times "Rani Mukherji is lovely and delivers a near flawless performance."
• Times of India "Yet, all this familiarity fails to breed contempt because there is Saif and there is Rani: two consummate actors who squeeze out the ordinariness from any role and make it extraordinary. As the young NRI couple who dare to dream the American dream, the two lend a spiritedness to their characters which somehow makes them the most lovable mom-dad/husband-wife duo in town."
• Indya.com "Rani compliments him well and they both share a great chemistry. She is suitably restrained during the emotional scenes in the second half and thankfully not made to shed buckets of tears like her two previous films, (KANK and Baabul)."
• Business of Cinema "Rani Mukerjee who has proved to be a storehouse of emotions, does well with her character. Her transformation from a sassy girl to a composed woman, allows her to perform and showcase an array of emotions."

(Negative)

• Indiatimes "Rani Mukherjee does nothing different. She seems to have stepped straight out of ‘Baabul’ and ‘KANK’ with her rona dhona in the second half and looks really bad in the first with her hideous wig and outfits. She miserably fails to carry off the image of a trendy New Yorker. She should stick to her ‘Indian’ avatar in future."

(Review critcizing the character that the director penned for Mukerji. Note: They are NOT criticizing her)

• IBN Live "Of the performances, neither Saif Ali Khan nor Rani is able to make much of an impression because their characters are so unidimensional and boring."

Majority Opinion (Result): There are 10 reviews of the film posted here. 8 of them praise Mukerji's performance whilst only one criticizes her. The last review criticizes the director for wasting her talent/the character that Mukerji played so they're not really criticizing her.--Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 03:12, 26 Janaury 2008 (UTC)

NOKJ

• HT, Mayank Shekhar: "Mukherji, miscast for an Anglicised, suave role"
• India Today: "Rani is a revelation as the star anchor with a heart of gold and the mouth of a sewer rat. She cusses, curls her lip in contempt at cuties, plays around with juniors, but when it comes to the story she is unerring in pursuing it."
• TOI: "Rani's character being fictional and glamourized seems superficial to an extent but she packs in the punch required for her dynamic character."
• TOI 2: "Rani Mukherji's rendition of the `bitch', Meera Gaity -- a balsy, cuss-word-spewing newshound -- is sure to give you an adrenalin high."
• DNA: "As the foul-mouthed, strong-willed journalist, Mukherji gives one of her best performances till date."
• Rajeev Masand: "Rani Mukherjee, despite being saddled with a cliché of a character, is more cinematically engaging, and knows exactly how to command the screen with her presence."
• The Telegraph: " while she is terrific in some of the scenes, there are quite a few shots where you feel the actress is just reciting lines, angrily."
• Rediff: "both her character and her performance could have been better."
• NDTV: "The character is written superficially and Rani’s portrayal of her is equally banal. It’s all about externals. She argues a lot and proudly labels herself a bitch but her hair stays perfectly in place and in the end, she even gets to do a super-hero-like slow motion walk."
• Sify: "Rani lacks the intensity to pull off such a strong role and the strain shows."
• The Hindu: "...we see a lot of Rani. The lady has presence, no doubt. But once her Meera takes charge of the case, there's no more mountain to climb."
• Indian Express: "Rani’s honey-eyed star reporter turn is much too outlined, sometimes unnecessarily so : saying ‘I am a bitch’ frequently isn’t always a redeeming factor."
• Indian Express 2: "Rani is basically the personification of the media's activism at that time and she has been good with her performance. However, she is the only character in the movie, that is over-the-top and veers toward unreality."
• mid-day: "Rani Mukerji is the hero of the film - with the crackling chutzpah and clap-worthy lines. She does to NOKJ what Sunny Deol did to Damini - she brings the screen on fire in the second half."

Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega

Rani received a Filmfare nomination for this movie. Its not even mentioned.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.34 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned in her filmography table. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 11:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But not in the main article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.8 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bunty Aur Babli

The article says,

Bunty Aur Babli, surfaced as one of the biggest hits of the year.[25] The film, though successful at the box office, opened to mixed
reviews, and so did Mukerji's performance, with one critic writing, "Rani has done a great job most of the time, though she does
tend to go a little over the top in the crying scenes.[26] Nevertheless, Mukerji received Best Actress nominations from the IIFA

Awards and Filmfare Awards.

She received award nominations(losing out to herself in another movie, eventually) and most critics loved her performance. It was a box office hit too. The remarks written here are both unfair and arbitrary. It should be written in a better manner.

I should be removing your message, as you are a sock, but anyway, there's nothing wrong with it (though I'm not the one who added it) and it is generally a positive comment. This is not a fansite, and this is something you will have to understand (I actually did not elaborate on Dil Bole Hadippa because there was little positivity). No one is against her. See for example the case of Saathiya, many critics were positive (though not gushing), so we would never mention this review by the Hindu. But if Rahul (Bollywood Dreamz) added it, I'm sure he knew what he did. I don't mind making another analysis about BAB, I'll do it tomorrow if I can, but I can't see the validity of the complant. Before that, I'd rather find a better review for Saathiya. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is, by all means, trash the Mehndis and the Baadals but her performance in Bunty aur Babli got favourable reviews from almost all critics and she was nominated at all the awards as well! The comment seems like a personal opinion(backed by ONE critic) and not a widely shared one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.30 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'll make an analysis later. And no one is trashing her. The award is mentioned, and the review is generally quite positive. And please stop posting here because you are a sock, if you don't want it to be protected as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The name of the movie 'Reema Kagti's Untitled Project' has been officially declared to be Talaash. Please update the name of the movie. The same can be verified at this link. --Catchuec2 (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't her name spelled Mukherjee and not Mukerji? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppatkar (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

She changed it. I think that is in the article, no? BollyJeff || talk 11:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that this article is running for GA. Hence few suggestions.

• Should the actress' name be mentioned whose role she re-played in Saathiya? As its a remake and Saathiya being a turning point.
• No mention of Aditya Chopra? I guess finding reliable source must be hard. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect fact int the article

Year Category Film Result 1999 Best Supporting Actress Kuch Kuch Hota Hai Won 2001 Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega Nominated[13] 2003 Best Actress Saathiya Nominated [14] Best Actress (Critics' Choice) Saathiya Won [15] 2004 Best Actress Chalte Chalte Nominated [16] 2005 Hum Tum Won [17] Best Supporting Actress Yuva Won [18] Veer-Zaara Nominated[19] 2006 Best Actress Black Won[20] Bunty Aur Babli Nominated[21] Best Actress (Critics' Choice) Black Won[22] 2007 Best Actress KANK Nominated[23] 2008 Laaga Chunari Mein Daag Nominated[24] Best Supporting Actress Saawariya Nominated[24] 2012 Best Supporting Actress No One Killed Jessica Nominated[25]

She has received 15 filmfare nominations, not 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.54 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Critics' awards are given without prior nominations, so these two do not count. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rani Mukerji/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 03:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I'm concerned with the tone of the article. Much of the phrasing is informal, and would be better suited for a magazine article or a documentary. There are also some clarity issues. I will point out specific examples of these and other issues below:

   • "Mukerji never harbored any ambitions to become an actress" Informal tone. More importantly, this is not a verifiable fact. She may have claimed to have never desired to become an actress; that would certainly be verifiable.
   • "before re-inventing herself" The meaning of this highly informal phrase is ambiguous.
   • "but in 2002 she tasted success" Informal tone.
   • "After doing a short cameo appearance for the first time in her father's Bengali film Biyer Phool (1996), Mukerji made her acting debut the following year, as the protagonist of Raja Ki Aayegi Baraat" This sentence is self-contradictory. How could she have made her acting debut in Raja Ki if she had already acted in Biyer Phool?
   • "However, upon seeing her cousin Kajol's success, she decided to try films again." Success with what? Was it a particular movie that inspired Rani? This phrase raised more questions than it answers.
   • "while the song "Aati Kya Khandala" made her popular among the masses" Informal tone.
   • "Karan Johar's directorial debut ... followed for her that year." Was this sentence written by someone who learned English as a second language? The reason I ask is that I have never encountered this "X followed for Y" construction in my entire life as a native speaker.
   • "She played the supporting role of Tina Malhotra, a sophisticated girl in love with Khan." In love with Khan, or in love with Khan's character?
   • What is an "adjusted worldwide gross"? We cannot assume that the reader will be familiar with terms like this. A wikilink should be added.
   • "She later played lead roles in films like Mehndi (1998) and Hello Brother (1999), alongside Salman Khan." Were these both alongside Salman Khan, or just Hello Brother?
   • "She then essayed a brief role in Kamal Haasan's Hey Ram as Hassan's first wife, Aparna Ram" This is a confusing sentence. Are "Hassan" and "Hasaan" the same person, or is "Hassan" a character in the movie?
   • Mukerji followed with a leading role in Bichhoo" Another instance of "followed" being used in a way that is completely unfamiliar to me. It's certainly possible that I'm just an idiot, or that my years of reclusivity have left me completely out of touch with the way the English language is used, but it seems far more likely that this is just not well-written.
   • "Mukerji followed with a leading role in Bichhoo, inspired by Luc Besson's Leon, opposite Bobby Deol, as the..." The two appositives in this sentence severely interrupt the flow of the sentence without adding any crucial details. I suggest deleting one.
   • "a stereotypical sacrificing bhartiya nari" Translation?
   • "she won a Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress, and among several other nominations, received her first Best Actress nomination at the Filmfare." Erm... what?

     The change doesn't help the problem. "she won a Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress, and received her first Best Actress nomination at the same ceremony." Wouldn't it be easier to simply say this: "she won her first Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress" ? Why would you bother mentioning the nomination after already stating that she had won?

   If you click on the provided links, you will see that they are two separate award categories. BollyJeff | talk 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, the Critics award for Best Actress and the Best Actress award are two separate categories. Smarojit (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

   • "While Khalid Mohamed described her performance as..." The use of "while" in this manner will most likely be interpreted as an attempt to set up a contrast. However, the rest of the sentence does not actually provide any contrasts, as all of the critiques presented are positive.

   Done - The grammatical mistakes and wordings have been corrected. Smarojit (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

   • "Mukerji also feels strongly for causes that affect women" This is another non-verifiable statement. We can only report how she has said to have felt, not how she actually felt. Also, can you give an example of such a cause that she has been involved with?
   • The third paragraph of Philanthropy and stage performances doesn't explain what kind of stage performances she was involved with. I'm particularly confused by Magnificent Five and Temptations 2004. Are these concerts? Musical theater? Reenactments of scenes from their films?

   Done - Changed. Included her participation in a charity auction for a women-related cause. Smarojit (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • All of the prose is covered by inline citations, and the references used appear to sufficiently reliable. However, the Filmography section does not have references of any kind.
   • "...the first actress to win two major awards in the same year" This phrase, taken from the lead, is not the same as this phrase, taken from the body: "She eventually became the first actor to have received both the Filmfare awards for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress in the same year." The second phrase is much more specific and verifiable, and it does not imply that the first is also true.

   Done - Removed the first phrase from the lead. Smarojit (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Early life needs to state where and when she was born.
   • I don't see why the following statement is necessary: "As part of a tradition, the Mukherjee family celebrates the festival of Durga Puja at Santacruz, Mumbai every year. Mukerji, being a religious person, takes part in the festivities with her entire family."
   • Did she graduate from Mithibai College? If so, when?

   Comment - I couldn't find the year in which she graduated, but according to a source she graduated from SNDT Women's University in Home Science. So I included that. Also, I feel that the quote "As part of a tradition, the Mukherjee family celebrates the festival of Durga Puja at Santacruz, Mumbai every year. Mukerji, being a religious person, takes part in the festivities with her entire family." is quite necessary. It shows her religious affiliations as well as the fact that she is close to her family. Smarojit (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

   • "Mukerji has three homes in Mumbai, including her childhood home. She bought a bungalow in Juhu for herself and her parents in mid-2005. The house went through a two year renovation with the interiors done by Twinkle Khanna and Sussanne Roshan." This was taken from the In the media section, where I strongly feel that it does not belong. How does this relate to the media?

   Comment - Changed the name of the section to "Personal life and media image". Smarojit (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

   I am of the opinion that work needs to be on the section itself, not its title. It reads like a collection of unrelated tidbits that didn't fit anywhere else, almost like a Trivia section. Look at the material about her voice (starting with "Mukerji's distinctive features include..."). I don't see how this relates to her personal life or her media image. I strongly suggest that you make a firm decision as to what material will be presented in this section; anything that doesn't fit with that decision should be deleted or moved to another section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   Comment - Removed the "trivia" information regarding her bungalow. Also, shifted the information about her voice texture to the career section. Smarojit (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • The lead seems to have been written with the intent of convincing the reader that Rani is the best actress in the world. It goes on and on about her accomplishments without explaining much else. "success" appears 3 times in the lead, and "award" appears 8 times. How has her acting style been described? What types of roles is she known for playing? What directors has she worked with? What philanthropic/charitable efforts has she been involved in? The goal of the lead is not to put the subject on a pedestal, but instead to summarize all of the major ideas that are presented.
   • A similar problem exists with the quotes that are used in the article. I see only two quotes which describe Rani's performances negatively, and one of those puts the blame on the script itself rather than the actress. If the article is going to rely on quotations to characterize the subject (which is fine for this sort of article), it needs to do so in a balanced way.

   Comment - I have changed the lead to make it more neutral. As for the quotes in the prose section, I have added a negative mention of her performance in Dil Bole Hadippa. I must add that none of her performances since 2002 has really been given a "negative review". What was criticized were her choice of films and the characters she played, which I have included in detail. Smarojit (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Some content was recently added by User:Anshulksingh and then reverted by User:Smarojit. If that's the end of it, then it won't be a problem; if the former attempts to add the content again, then it will be a problem.

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images used give a clear illustration of the subject. Image licenses look unproblematic. Captions, after some minor editing, are unproblematic.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As it currently stands, the article does meet the GA criteria. However, the issues are easily fixed, so I will place the nomination on hold for a week.

   I hereby pass this article.

Comment: Why does the filmography need references, and how many? All of the film articles are linked, and there are reference about many of them in the text sections. I have never seen a filmography loaded with sources for released films. BollyJeff | talk 12:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

After re-reading the GA criteria, I have decided to strike that comment. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: Nominators should not strike comments written by the reviewer, per WP:TALK: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." Instead, please leave a brief summary of what changes have been made to address the issue, or an argument as to why it is not an issue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Rani mukerji being human.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rani mukerji being human.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rani mukerji being human.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Mukerji TIFF09.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mukerji TIFF09.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mukerji TIFF09.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Rani Mukerji at the Durga Puja.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rani Mukerji at the Durga Puja.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rani Mukerji at the Durga Puja.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 February 2014

173.238.210.45 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

All the awards should be listed next to her Films

The awards need to be in the Notes Segment so people can easily see which performance of hers got the most recognition and hence opt to watch that movie. That's what wikipedia is good for. It's an encyclopedia for easy referral. And those awards there can validate easily which performance of hers is good to watch rather than reading her whole career article. I know I wouldn't read all that much. Plus, it's done already and it looks organized. And other actresses as well as Aishwarya Rai has it like that. No need to debate this. If you really want to create problems, then I can make a whole separate page for Filmography but that's just troublesome. I would much rather have it on one page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbin14 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's against policy for Bollywood actors. Only National and Filmfare Awards go there. Rai's filmography page breaks that policy, and will be changed as soon as I get time. No other Bollywood actor or actress has such a format. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 02:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well not everyone wants to do the work and fill in all those awards. So it's fine if you're lazy. Just say that. But I'm not demanding everyone to follow this format. But since Rai and now Mukerji's filmography was worked on beautifully, why do you want to just scratch that away? Forget bollywood or hollywood, this is the best organization each performance for any actor can get for their work. I hope you change your mind because you might stick to this format now but I know how fast things on wikipedia change so if this is to be done three years later, better to keep all my hard work then have someone else start from scratch. And do you have any good reason as to why it shouldn't be kept? None. Stop comparing formats Bollywood vs. Hollywood. I only see Mukerji as an actor first and any actor would like their performances in their filmography to be validated. See Cate Blanchett page, it's beautiful work. All the information I need is in her filmography. Thanks! Do consider all points instead of having a pre-formed opinion about this. Be open-minded. That's all I ask. Also, you can add this better reference for the Malaysia concert as the show happened today instead of having no details from the old reference once protection is taken off the page: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/539074/20140217/shahrukh-madhuri-rani-mukherjee-temptation-reloaded-photos.htm

comment added by Tumbin14 (talk • 16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Rename to Rani Mukerji Chopra?

Now that she is married to Aditya Chopra, should not the wiki be renamed(moved) to Rani Chopra or Rani Mukerji Chopra? Inviting Discussions. Please share your opinion, before we take final decision. Thanks. Quartzd (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No. A woman need not change her birth name when she gets married. Only if Mukerji legally changes her last name, then we reflect it here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

They have got married. May be some people was not invited. Lol [10] Daan0001 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But that's not an issue over going in for a name change. —Vensatry _(Ping) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree on that. If she annouces that she is changing her name then we can do the same. Otherwise it's no. I was only making a point that she is MARRIED now. Daan0001 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright :) —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Biyer Phool

The Rani Mukerji article says that Biyer Phool released in 1992, but I think that is a wrong information. She started her career with 17 so it has to be 1996.

• http://idiva.com/news-entertainment/rani-mukerji-i-wont-deny-im-in-love/10254

This interview says that her father turned Aa Gale Lag Jaa down in 1994, because he taught that his daughter is too young. If somebody watched Biyer Phool already they can see that Rani Mukerji does not look like 14. The problem is that I couldn't find a reliable source, which says 1996 just this article from Spuul

• https://spuul.com/stars/95-rani-mukerji

And this article says that she shot for Raja Ki Aayegi Baaraat at first and then for Biyer Phool, but Biyer Phool released before RKAB.

• http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080404/jsp/entertainment/story_9095682.jsp

And that is why I think that the movie released in 1996 and not in 1992 although many other articles write the opposite. I assume that they copied that from Wikipedia or from other websites, because there is no article older than 2010 that writes 1992.--Shwayze (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We'll be following what the reliable sources say, per WP: RS. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.newsaajtak.in/cinema-world/list-of-indian-actresses/page/indrani-haldar

Here it is.--Shwayze (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's likely to be 1996. Different videos of the film/songs therein are mentioning 1996 as the release year.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Peacock terms in the article (Is this still an FA?)

I am quite surprised that this article marked as a Featured Article in 2013 is still considered one. The language of the article is highly self-congratulory. For example, "one of the most high-profile celebrities in India", "widespread success", "widespread recognition", and numerous quotes of praise by reviewers where a few would suffice. Not many of these quotes contribute informational or encyclopedic value to the article. ("Amongst the leading ladies, it is Rani Mukerji who is the best of the lot"). The word "success" appears 32 times in the article. Time for an FA review, and some editing? -- Rohini (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the version that passed FA, with these very so-called "peacock" terms. What makes your opinion better than the FAC reviewers who deemed it as one of the best articles here? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys! Krimuk, good to see you around. First off, Wikipedia is an ongoing project, so everyone is welcome to present their queries anytime even if some article is an FA. It's not about one's opinions which are better than others', it's all about policy and guidelines which should be abided by. That being said, I can't see the problem really. I don't see an overwhelming use of peacock terms, and if Mukerji attained success, why is it wrong? "Success" is not a bad word, especially when its use is justified and supported by reliable sources. Mukerji is a popular actress, and yes, some of her roles or films met with "widespread success". Actually the fact that quotes are used is excellent, because it means that the positive commentary is not the opinion of a Wikipedia editor but a movie critic. I think this is an excellent article and everything is presented fairly. Just one glance into the lead shows such sequences as "Mukerji's films fared poorly at the box office for the next three years" and " several unsuccessful films which led critics to criticise her for choosing poor roles". Why is that ignored? Personally I don't like the use of "high-profile" either, because it's ambiguous, but other than that everything is balanced and within context. Rohini, if you think some of the prose could be toned down, you are more than welcome to edit this page, which, I believe, definitely meets FA standards. Tagging articles is easy, contributing to their development is the practice that is most called for. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Shahid for your measured response. Firstly, a clarification in reply to your last sentence. I tagged the article with the intent of working on it further. However, the tag was swiftly removed, for being in -- and I quote -- "bad faith" and seemingly for challenging the contents of an FA. It made sense to bring the matter for discussion here, and hold off making further edits in the "peacock" context, because in all probability those edits would also be reverted, also for the same reasons. Secondly, the use of the words "success", "recognition" and their variants and the qualifier "widespread" is not problematic by itself in an article of this nature. My point was simple and singular: Are the constant repetition and the sheer number of congratulatory phrases and quotes necessary; Would a few prominent ones sufficiently make the point; Does each one of them contribute encyclopaedic value to the article that the other phrases and quotes don't? The answer to one or more of these questions could be "yes" or "no" or something in between, and I am up for that discussion. -- Rohini (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry for being curt earlier, but I have little patience for editors who waltz in and stick bad-faith tags on articles instead of providing constructive criticism. Hence the kneejerk reaction. Of course there’s room for improvement, and if the use of ‘high-profile’ is ambiguous, then yes, that makes sense to me. (To be fair, it was added during the FAC by another reviewer.) Anyway, thanks Shahid. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Sorry for being curt...": Interesting that you apologise not to the person you were rude to, but to the one who made you aware of it.
Nevertheless, even when you take back your words you qualify them ("little patience", "kneejerk reaction").
"...editors who waltz in..": You might already be aware of the policy against territorialising articles, WP:OWN, which would also have applied to "What makes your opinion better than that of the reviewers?", had you not struck it out.
Good luck with what you are doing, and have a nice day. -- Rohini (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Rohini, I don't mean to advocate Krimuk (not that he needs it to begin with), but from what we can see he is a very hard-working and prolific editor whose work has been acknowledged time and again. I can therefore assume that much of his work has been aided by productive collaborations. There's no reason then why we couldn't work it out together on this very convenient platform and expect him to team up for the better of this insightful and, in my view, well-written article. Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I do see your point; I personally always support neutral writing. Instead of labelling a venture a 'success', one could just show why it is a success; the facts will speak for themselves and the readers will come to their own conclusions.

I think we could start by agreeing to remove that unwanted "high-profile" term, which is rather journalistic and a little too lofty in my book. The lead anyway mentions that Mukerji has "established herself as a leading actress", that she's won many awards, that her roles have been "a significant departure...", not to mention her off-screen life having been "the subject of substantial media coverage in India", so her position as a high-profile celebrity could be more than assumed by virtue of these well-sourced, arguably factual, statements.

Moreover, when I used to work on articles of actors (my last project being Dimple Kapadia a few years ago, perhaps the one I found most challenging) and using critics' comments, I used to gather and observe all the reviews available so that I could pick a quote which would be most representative of the majority view. I think the reviews on this page, which I used to work on too before Krimuk's valuable arrival, do represent critics' general agreement over one performance or another. I can see several instances where her work, whether her films or her actual performances, is said to have not been considered up to the mark and even criticized by some. Are there any examples where you think one could tone it down a little, maybe instances where the prose appears repetitive or similar in too close of proximity? It could well be a matter of flow or more distinctive and diverse wording and nothing else. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Quote and citation 144 don't match

Reema Kagti, the director of Talaash: The Answer Lies Within, said of Mukerji, "Rani likes to prepare a lot. She gets obsessive about the role and wants to know everything about her character. What's her character's back-story, what is going on in her head at a specific point".
The URL cited with this text does not contain this quote: https://web.archive.org/web/20130406191356/http://www.rediff.com/movies/slide-show/slide-show-1-talaash-interview-with-reema-kagti/20121129.htm. It is a URL archived in 2013. The page in its current form is the same as the archived one: http://www.rediff.com/movies/slide-show/slide-show-1-talaash-interview-with-reema-kagti/20121129.htm. Am I missing something? -- Rohini (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sigh! Yes, you did miss "something". It's quite basic actually, but hey, I'll try and be nice.

The source very much contains the quote. Press the next button that's located right below the article text, until you reach page 5, and voila, the quote will magically appear.

You might ask, why not link directly to "page 5" to save us from all the clicking? Well, that's something you need to take up with Rediff.com, who redirect us to the beginning of the page (i.e. 1), no matter which part of the article you provide a link to. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I tried different combinations of the URL, the archived and the original, with and without #5 in it. As penance for adding the "bad-faith tag" and missing the "Next" button in that horrendous layout, I have updated Rani Mukerji's Wikidata entry. -- Rohini (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. And I do hope that you can now consider me to be one of the good people here who works towards the betterment of articles. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rani Mukerji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505065654/http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/film/cannes-celebrates-100-years-of-indian-cinema to http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/film/cannes-celebrates-100-years-of-indian-cinema

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Birthday

The user The Mighty Glen is persistently removing Mukerji's birthday from the article claiming that is unsourced, when it is sourced in the appropriate section. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, you're right, it's sourced further down. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. Next time you call an editor with over 28k+ edits a "disruptive editor", see the reason for their revert. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

True, I didn't read your edit summary carefully enough. A typo in your edit summary threw me: "It's not sourced." But the rest of your summary pointed to the section below. It won't happen again. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Birth place

According to Gogerly Liz's 21st Century Lives: Bollywood Stars, Mukerji was born in Calcutta and not Mumbai. Should i change it? --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Michael Halim: Just noticing this now. Her birth place is inconsistently reported. This slideshow indicates she was born in Mumbai. (Granted, I'm not a fan of using slideshows as references.) This source indicates she was born in Kolkata (which, as you've noted, would be correctly indicated as Calcutta). Barring some other authoritative source appearing, I'd probably lean toward Calcutta for present. I couldn't verify the Gogerly source, but take your word for it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

---

@Krimuk2.0: Hi, it is regarding this change. The accompanying sources do not mention anything about the subjects birth place (the book source mentions Kajol's birth place being 'Bombay' instead). Seems like Rani Mukheji's birth_place is contentious as can be seen in the above discussion between Nicholas Michael Halim and Cyphoidbomb. Would you replace it with a better source? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting because I'm watching some of her stuff in order to further update and add to her article. In an interview with Mayank Shekhar, which can be found online (see here) she says she was "born and brought up in Juhu". So that should be the source (added - already there, refname moved). Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

For your observation, Krimuk2.0. I find the recent changes to the article to be not very constructive, although I do appreciate User:Sssaaraa's willingness to contribute to the article. The issues standing:

• Kajol's bibliography section has been copy-pasted entirely onto this article although most sources do not have relevance here and some do not even mention Mukerji.
• Among the online sources added, I see examples such as blurtit.com, abhisays.com - non-RS.
• MOS issues, overlinking, overquoting (some quotes by random journalists with gushing praise which might be justified but should be put into context, otherwise it would just be WP:UNDUE).
• The new section: Public image, is imo unnecessary because it's just a list of listings and not really an in-depth overview of her public image like on the other pages mentioned by the adding contributor. Mukerji has never nurtured much a public image and if I'm not mistaken has been mostly a rather private person. Moreover, one of the paragraphs starts with "Mukerji is also known as a sex symbol and is among the most attractive" - "attractive" has been mentioned before on the article, and sex symbol - well, I think Mukerji is a stunning woman and very underrated when it comes to her looks and sex appeal, personally speaking of course, but I highly doubt she has ever been a sex symbol.

I just do not have time to go over everything, filter out the bad and keep the good stuff. I do appreciate the efforts, but I think such major changes made to an FA should be done more delicately and with proper discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO for now. I see so many issues. Look at this edit for example: they have added this BOI ref which describes Bombay Talkies as a flop, but the editor has made-up the title "Bombay Talkies succeeds at Box Office" with a made-up author name "Shekar". I really don't understand what they were trying to achieve here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello Sir Krimuk2.0, Mukerji is considered in the media as one of the most popular actresses of Indian cinema. I feel we should add more in Intro, either genre of her filmography or her diverse and strong women roles or something like that.

For Eg: In the case of Kajol, Priety Zinta, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Urmila Matondkar and her other contemporaries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40D0:103A:441:6CF3:129B:C598:4D29 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The intro mentions her versatility and her being among the highest-paid in her prime. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Mrs. Chatterjee vs Norway

Considering that the film did well and even got her a recent award (of no respected credit or credibility, to be honest), I've been trying to balance the negative review on the page but all the reviews I've found are really very negative: NDTV, Film Companion, First Post, HT, The Hindu, Rediff, The Guardian, ToI, The Indian Express. There isn't a single review which is firmly positive or doesn't accuse her of going overboard. It's almost unpleasant to read them and I don't get why they're all so harsh on her performance, which IMO is nothing great but nowhere as bad as they say.

The problem is with how it all appears on the page, and I can't think of a good way to sum it up on the article as it looks peculiar to mention a negative review, then mention the film's good box-office performance and top it all with the award she got for it (that too, a critics' award ironically). There's some sort of a logical gap that could confuse uninvolved readers.

The solution I propose in order to bridge this gap could be saying that critics agreed that she was let down by the script and was criticised for overacting, but some critics agreed her performance grew better in the second half. I'm basing this on the following:

• Times of India: "The actress who has the potential to be effortless on camera, goes theatrical and excessive. Her high-decibel fight for justice clutters the first half with more noise, less grief. However, she gets the tone of her character right in the second half when the silence leaves you more room to think and feel. Rani becomes Sagarika Chakraborty gradually and is effective once she lets her eyes speak volumes."
• The Hindu: "Rani’s performance looks jarring in the beginning as she tries a little too hard to execute the stereotype of a Bengali housewife in an alien milieu... A tremendous actor , Rani has not been able to tone down the melodramatic instincts of her pre-OTT performances. However, as the narrative progresses, she gets the pulse of Debika right and she starts speaking to us."
• Saibal Chatterjee says, "Rani Mukerji, a performer of proven ability, is let down by the writing. She struggles to hit the right notes. She shifts back and forth between the rattled and the raucous. As a result, the essence of the character never quite comes through." But then he adds, "When the 135-minute drama, about an hour and half in, settles into a somewhat more controlled rhythm, Mukerji gets into her stride."

What do you think, @User:Krimuk2.0? Maybe you know of other reviews which I haven't seen? Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, there it is, from the film's article page: a positive review by India Today (which in itself is tremendously exaggerated if compared to the others). We could say the following then: "The film was poorly received by critics, who found Mukerji overly melodramatic, although some reviewers noted her growing impetus in latter portions." Then we keep the existing review on the page and add the one by India Today? (something like, "Zinia Bandyopadhyay of India Today, however, considered it as one of her best performances"). I'm not sure how fair or right it would be that one review against the sea of criticism, but it might be the only way to contextualise the prose. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it's a sea of negative reviews, so I don't think we should make it seem otherwise. The current version seems most objectively appropriate to me -- negative review, followed by sleeper hit success and her award win. I don't really think we need to contextualise it any more than that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: I see, and I appreciate your quest for fairness. Even without adding that single positive review, I would still add a sort of summary before the review on how the film was received, as well as the general reception to Mukerji's performance, to make it flow better (something like what I offer above ala "The film was poorly received by critics, who found Mukerji overly melodramatic, although some reviewers noted her growing impetus in latter portions."). Good talking to you, as always. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please go ahead and summarise it that way. I always trust your judgement. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)