Jump to content

Talk:Madhuri Dixit/Archive 1

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

1st section

Should I make a seperate page for her filmography? if so, what?

I don't think we need a separate filmography page. This page is much less than 32KB limit. utcursch 11:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

How do I make it a continuously numbered list while having indented translations? does anyone know how to do that? -gren

Merovingian, what the HECK are you doing?

You have now twice removed most of the material from the article, leaving it a stub. Do you hate Madhuri, so that she gets less space than current sex symbols like Bipasha Basu? Marking the revert as "minor" is also an extremely unfair move.

If you think the article should be re-organized, re-organize it, don't delete information. Zora 8 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Case 1

I am requesting that this be changed to:

Does anybody know what language माधुरी दीक्षित is in? There is a link to the Sanskrit Wikipedia, where the article is technically a candidate for speedy deletion, due to the fact that it simply repeats the title. Sanskrit does not, as far as I know, have its own separate alphabet / writing system. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:50 (UTC)

That's Hindi, written in Devanagari script. Someone -- I think Elyaqim -- has been putting Devanagari and in some cases Arabic versions of the names in Bollywood articles. I'm thinking it over.

I've let the various Muslim editors introduce Arabic script right and left in the Islamic articles, and that may be necessary. However, I don't think that Devanagari and Arabic script at all necessary or useful for the Bollywood articles. For one thing, Elyaqim has been singling out the Muslim actors and putting Arabic script ONLY by their names. I think that may be code for "Muslims, watch out!" Which would be POV.

(The history here is that Hindustani, the various dialects spoken across northern India and Pakistani, comes in a Muslim, Persian and Arabic-influenced version called Urdu, written in Arabic script, and a Hindu, Sanskritized version called Hindi, which is written in Devanagari. So using one or the other script for the same name is making a political/religious statement.)

What do you think? If you think it's POV, let's remove the Arabic and the Devanagari versions.

Otherwise, adding more links/info to the first sentence is a good idea. Zora 8 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

Then, is my proposed change to the first sentence acceptable? --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 10:24 (UTC)

Yup. If you want to leave the Devanagari there for the moment, until I get a response from Elyaqim, that's OK too. Zora 8 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll make the agreed-upon changes and prepare the case for the second sentence. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Devanagari spelling provides additional information, it gives right pronounciation, since you can't trust roman transcriptions at all. BernardM 23:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Bernard -- you're Elyaqim, right? -- the problem with adding Devanagari to some Bollywood names, and Devanagari and Arabic to others, is that you're using it as a pointer to "who's Muslim and who's not". In the context of Indian politics, this is inflammatory. Either you give Devanagari and Arabic for all of them, or for none at all. I would prefer none at all. I'll wait a day or so before deleting, in case you can change my mind <g>. Zora 02:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • No, I'm not Elyaqim and I don't even know who he is. I don't want to use Devanagari script to tell wether an actor is Hindu or Muslim. If we follow this principle, we should also add Gurmukhi script, because the actor could be Sikh, etc. I don't think we should be afraid of such things. Using Devanagari script just tells correct spelling (if you don't know Hindi, believe me, transcriptions are really messy). I can't add "Urdu spelling" too because I don't know it, but please don't remove Devanagari script since it would make the article lose information. BernardM 09:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can see your point -- I've run into movies where people have rendered the title three or four different ways. But I'm not sure it's so much a problem for actors. People seem to settle quite quickly on an English version of an actor's name. The only one I've seen flip around is Akshaye/Akshay Khanna. And just adding Devanagari sends the message that Devanagari and Hindi are better than Arabic script and Urdu -- when it's the same language, really.
I'll also admit that the older movies inevitably have titles in Devanagari and Arabic script, and the newer ones tend to just have Devanagari. So perhaps the scale is tipping. But still ... Zora 10:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking of consistency between the different roman transcriptions but of constitency between Devanagari spelling and roman spelling. With roman transcriptions different sounds are rendered in the same way, they're not rendered in the same way from one word to another, etc. You need Devanagari/Arabic spelling to know what a word really is. I know Hindi and Urdu are the same language, I don't have anything against having Urdu spelling as well on WP. I just don't know it, so I'm not going to give it, but if someone else does it, it's very nice. BernardM 12:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Case 2

I am requesting that this be changed to:

  • She is a native of Mumbai who has had a successful film career.
She is a native of Mumbai who has had an extremely successful film career, spanning much of the 1980s and 1990s.
I don't think you quite grasp the magnitude of her stardom at the time. She was in the biggest hits and had the most fans. Bollywood does that, much more than Hollywood. I'd say it's an artifact of the way films are made there. Instead of an actor doing one film at a time, as is usual in Hollywood, the HOT star signs a number of films and makes them simultaneously, commuting between Mumbai sets by limousine. This is starting to change, since there's more location filming these days, but it's still possible for the top stars to dominate the biggest releases, sometimes for years at a time. See the Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh Khan articles for extreme examples of this. I'm not being fannish, I'm being realistic. Zora 8 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Note: it's after 1 AM here in Honolulu and I need to sleep. Please don't think I've abandoned the discussion. Zora 8 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

I understand, but I'm simply seeking confirmation for the proposed change. I'm not trying to downplay Dixit's success; I'm just trying to clarify the passages. In this case, I am seeking to replace one of Bollywood's leading ladies with has had a successful film career. I believe that the latter is a better example of acceptable Wikipedia article prose, not that the current wording isn't. This is an encyclopedia whose articles are written inn a neutral point of view. I believe that the proposed change is more objective. For the record, I don't doubt Dixit's talents; instead, I am trying to explain that it seems more in accordance with Wikipedia custom, in which people of the same group (in this case, actresses) are all treatly fairly. By the way, I am happy to continue this discussion this at a later time. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 11:22 (UTC)

Well, I'm attached to "one of Bollywood's leading ladies" because of the alliteration. But if you want to replace it with "successful actress", I won't stand against it. However -- I do not think it a good idea to remove any mention of her film roles, or why people like her in them. I want the Bollywood articles to be USEFUL to people who are venturing into an Indian grocery/spice/video store for the first time, staring at the unfamiliar names and faces on the covers of the DVDs, and wondering what to rent. I have been there, and it took me years to get my bearings. I want to spare other non-Indian people the same disorientation. Letting them know that Madhuri plays roles which require "dhak-dhak" dancing instead of nuanced acting is going to help them figure out whether to rent Tezaab or Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam. It's not saying that the movies involved are good or bad -- just what type they are and how popular they were. We have a whole List of popular Bollywood films which is a reference for people exploring Indian cinema. If Wikipedia is still here a hundred years from now, I figure we'll all be kinda brown, bear names like Farouk Rahul Wang, and know exactly who Madhuri Dixit was. In which case the film summaries can get a bit drier. In the meantime, I don't think it hurts anything if some of the articles or film summaries sound a bit like TV Guide. Zora 9 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

I will change the second sentence, and keep the passages about her major film roles, with some syntactical clarification. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 9, 2005 08:24 (UTC)

Hey, hey, loosen up!

Merovingian, it's really not necessary to write so stiffly <g>. I don't know what you have against the words "hit" or "super-hit" -- they're descriptive, not subjective. Good or bad is a matter of opinion, how many weeks it played in Mumbai is a matter of record. I restored super-hit for Hum Aapke Hain Koun ... it was. Surpassed only by Sholay and Dulwalia Dulhania Le Jayenge. I did some copyediting and tried to make the prose more supple. Zora 9 July 2005 10:05 (UTC)

I guess my reasoning is that popularity is relative. I'm not trying to take away from the movie's status, but most Americans have never even heard of Dixit. On the other hand, I'd say that most Indians have no idea who Lindsay Lohan is. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess I'm so far into the Indian film world at this point that I naturally take the Indian viewpoint. It's interesting, though, that both Hollywood and Bollywood are increasingly reporting in terms of domestic receipts and international receipts -- but in each case, international is defined vis-a-vis the local market. So far as I know, there's no global film ranking that covers films both by receipts (with everything converted to dollars, say), and by eyeballs. You'd have to count eyeballs to get some idea of relative popularity, because a film shown primarily in developed countries, where people can afford to pay more, is going to have bigger receipts per eyeball. But eyeballs are really uncountable ... especially with the piracy that's rampant in the Third World. Interesting problem ...

Zora 07:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Merovingian removes, anon fanboy adds

I dunno if Merovingian is still reading this talk page, but I find it somewhat amusing that after he and I scrapped over his plans to wring all the fannish hyperbole <g> out of the article, an anon came along and re-added the hyperbole. Stronger than it was before -- now Ms. Dixit is a national icon! I thought that only applied to Amitabh ...

I removed it, but I'm not sure that it is possibly to hold the line against legions of South Asian fans. Zora 06:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Urdu

I first want to thank BernardM for summing up the whole transliteration arguments (and do you get as frustrated/bored explaining it over and over [and over and over] as I have?). If anyone wants to join me in starting a unicode activist wikigroup, than please, by all means! I think while honourable, Merovingian is a little out of their element, ever so respectfully speaking. In the Desi world a Gora needs to know this stuff! And when it comes to Bollywood, stardom really isn't so relative - it is a cultural anomoly. Shahrukh is like 20 leading Hollywood men wrapped up into one for instance. However, when it comes to transliterating names it can get sticky and I don't know how to resolve that. There are so many dynamics to consider. If we want to avoid it all together there is this option: Mādhurī Dīkṣīt (or Dīxīt). But Urdu is no problem, though the Sanskrit क्ष conjunct and ष itself has no equivalent in Urdu nast'alīq/naskh. Here's Madhuri Dixit in Urdu naskh: مادهرى ديكشيت

Go ahead, put in as many as you want! Whee! Or add a section of transliterations at the end, so it doesn't swamp the start of the article. I can't advise you about the Devanagari, I'm ignorant there. Zora 09:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Btw, are we absolutely sure it दीक्षीत अौर न दिक्षित है? I'll be honest here that I don't know, but it sounds odd in Hindi, and when I hear Desis say her name it is more like िदक्षत by ear. If we want to go crazy we could also go with માધુરી દીક્ષીત, ਮਾਧੁਰੀ ਦੀਕਸ਼ੀਤ, etc. Khiradtalk

I've corrected spelling. Some anon replaced दीक्षित with दीक्षीत. दीक्षित seems to be the most used spelling. By the way you typed wrong Devanagari, see Wikipedia:Enabling_complex_text_support_for_Indic_scripts. We're not going to use Gujarati script or Gurmukhi because Hindi films' language is Hindi. BernardM 22:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No caste

I removed the claim that Madhuri is a Chitpavan Brahmin. Let's NOT do the caste nonsense on WP. If she is indeed a Brahmin, it would be notable if she made a big deal out of it. As she doesn't, it isn't anyone else's concern. Zora 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does matter. She is part of the "Chitpavan Community" (you can substitute a plethora of words for caste like: clan, tribe, etc.). Its more easy to justify this way. She was therefore then born in the "Chitpavan" community. Considering her husband belongs to the exact same community, it seems she feels a sense of belonging in the "community".Bakaman 03:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless she makes the claim, prominently, it's not up to us to categorize her. Zora 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You're correct about categorization, we already came to a consensus on that in WP:INB. Merely saying she was born in a "Marathi Chitpavan" (no need for the varna, its obvious to people who know, and harmless to people who dont) family isnt adding "caste nonsense" its adding "context" about her upbringing. IMO, anyone who reads the article even right now (from India) can easily figure out her caste by some very obvious clues in the article.Bakaman 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know much about the entire caste-issue, however, if mentioning the "Chitpavan Community" helps people to understand more about Dixit's background, I'm all for it. I imagine "Chitpavan Community" a bit like a German saying s/he's a "Badener" - not exactly a "caste", but for a German person it says all. ;) --Plumcouch Talk2Me 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not like saying that she's a native of some city or another. It's more like classifying her as white, as opposed to colored or black in Apartheid-era South Africa, because castes are ranked and the upper castes dominate and exploit the lower castes. Being a Brahmin in India is a BIG DEAL, because they're a small proportion of the population and they hold most of the plum jobs. Being a Brahmin is much nicer than being a Dalit, an Untouchable, and being forbidden to use the village well, visit the village temple, etc. Or being targeted for rape and murder if you get uppity. Kherlanji Massacre WP should not buy into this archaic and evil system by classifying people. IF they choose to classify themselves, then we can report it. Zora 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm please dont parade your ignorance of the actual reality of clan networks in India. The system of clan's and tribes is still strong, while the four varnas are slowly melting away (for good). I have purposely used words like community to neutralize the impact of the assertions. Classifying would be occuring if we were adding categories (which I have explicitly stated many times I am opposed to). Actually the more neutral term is "Konkanastha" (which merely means "person from Konkan", a region in India). O and btw, there are no untouchables in India anymore, the practice is outlawed. I find your assertion that Brahmins are priviledged to be highly inaccurate. Please do read up on actual events rather than selectively trying to emotionally blackmail users. Its not like Brahmins (3%) were lording it out over Dalits or anything.Bakaman 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Zora,

You are in effect calling me and my people (Chitpavans) racists. Firstly you are exagerating the extent of casteism that prevails in India.

because castes are ranked and the upper castes dominate and exploit the lower castes. Being a Brahmin in India is a BIG DEAL, because they're a small proportion of the population and they hold most of the plum jobs. And how the heck is this related to the discussion here.

Have you even been to India? Evidently reading leftist rags has made you prejudiced. BTW dont rake up Kherlanji on every now and then. I must point out that its wasnt the Brahmins but Other Backward Castes (no pointing this does not make me racist)

As for mentioning caste. Look around... every fucking South Asian bio-article (yes even the ones on Sikhs & Muslims) mention the persons caste. It is used as mere ethnic/cultural term rather than varna.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 18:26, 22 December 2006 (U]

Moreover Zora, its about the time you stopped forcing your half-baked views on us. 'Haingin around at Sepia Mutiny' hardly qualifies for expertise in Indian culture. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Marathi

I can understand Zora deleting her caste, but why edit out references to her ethnicity (Maharashtrian)? अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Does she claim to be a Maharashtrian? Who defines what that means? Who has the authority to pigeonhole people?
If it's a question of nationality, you can decide that by where someone votes, what kind of passport he/she carries. You can describe someone as being born in one country, but living and holding citizenship in another. There are rules for deciding whether someone is IN or OUT. But what are the rules for describing someone as Maharashtrian? Are you willing to accept anyone legally resident in Maharashtra, and voting in the state elections, as Maharashtrian? If so, what does that make Madhuri, who lives in the US? Zora 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. There are two cats Category:Marathi people and Category:People from Maharashtra for that reason. People's domicile change (though she is settled in America) but their birthplace and ethnicity is stationary. There is a difference between Maharashtrian and Marathi. One refers to a person domiciled in a certain state in India, the other refers to an ethnic group. Yes we are able to refer to a legal resident/voting as Maharashtrian, and that makes madhuri an Indian American. There is no "pidgeonholing" going on, and obvious facts are to be stated as obvious facts. Its not my problem if unlike every other user that touches these pages, you lack the ability to tell which ethnic group a random Indian person belongs to. Were merely sorting granny smiths from fujis; neither is better or worse, but both are different entities.Bakaman 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sigh.. Zora, your righteousness is getting a touch irritating. Maharashtrian is an alternate term used for Marathi people. It has nothing to do with being domiciled in state of Maharashtra. Its not my job to teach half-educated wannabe 'India experts'. Just one small request, dont delete info, unless you really know what you are doing.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 11:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fame and Popularity

I removed this section from the page as it was completely unencyclopedic. A relevant discussion can be found on Talk:Preity Zinta as to why that text should not be in the article. Regards, xC | ☎ 07:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Madhuri Dixit with her family.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Madhuri Dixit with her family.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Additions

Points for expansion of this article. Add your suggestions below & comment on them accordingly. This will help other editors to find reliable sources & then add in the article.


Useful links:

I highly doubt any of these will really help us improve this article. Right now it's in a sad state. We must improve her career section first and foremost. Ass info about her films, their critical reception, the kind of roles she played, how they were received. There's much to write. Shahid • Talk2me 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Right! but i can hardly find any stuff on net about her golden days. Internet is just crying of her return journey. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Never knew this. Quite funny thing. Did you know it? Vikram Batra has a funny connection with Madhuri Dixit. Read this. I am also told that this line appears in LOC Kargil. Should this, after having good refernce, go on article? Say under a public-image section. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Filmography

I think the filmo should be back as it was - no need for costars and director columns. This just takes unnecessary space and contributes nothing. Shahid • Talk2me 19:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be concerned about her, not all these other folks. All of that info is in the individual articles. BollyJeff || talk 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
So, I think we can restore the previous version. What's your opinion, Animesh? Shahid • Talk2me 19:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Aaahh!!! You know i wouldnt agree. I did it!! :) I also cited Riya Sen, a GOOD ARTICLE. Just for curiosity i also went in the GA review of that article & found no objections to that format of filmography. I understand that when you would want to discuss a small issue like sortablity of Notes Column in order to bring uniformity throughout Wikipedia, this issue of "extra" columns should definitely be discussed. & i also see your point that this info isnt specifically abt her. But we know that lead coactors & directors play good role in any actor's career. You wouldnt mind having Director's column in Urmila's filmography to show RVG influence. Or Rani Mukerji's work under Yash Raj banner. Nargis, in her 50-something films has been in 16 films opposite Raj Kapoor. (Dont worry! They arent added in table yet). But these things through a table are better represented, especially sortables ones. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not think it's necessary at all, and frankly Riya Sen is not a template for Madhuri Dixit even though it's good. Please consider WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to take example then you better take it from Angelina Jolie and other FAs, all of which have none of these columns. Shahid • Talk2me 11:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need to mention the directors, since the article is concerned only about Madhuri Dixit. If the filmography is a separate page, co-stars can be mentioned. --Commander (Ping Me) 16:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay I see that the majority - 3 people out of four agree that this column is not necessary. Will have to be removed. Shahid • Talk2me 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
how does the info when on separate page become "abt her" & otherwise its not? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Madhuri-Dixit.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Madhuri-Dixit.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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Caste

Dear Editors!
There has been a discussion on India Portal related to mentioning of caste of subjects. The point is that mentioning caste of people, who have nothing to do with their caste, is found to be unnecessary by few editors. Hence the caste of the subject person needs to be deleted from the biography. I am not deleting the caste as of now but am only posting this here so that the regular editors of this article are well aware of it beforehand and no edit-wars take place. For details of discussion held on the portal please refer Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. Your views if any are welcome there or even here.
And.... as the reasons of exclusion of caste pointed out were "irrelavant to notability of subject person", "privacy of the subject person", "inclusion of caste is like branding individuals", etc. other information included in the article which also fall under these cases will also be removed after discussions. Examples of it included religion, non-notable spouse's and children's and parents' information, previous occupation, lived in places, non-notability related educational qualification, etc.
Your views on this are also welcome here or at the India portal. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Beauty Secrets by Madhuri

I think she had her line of beauty products called "Beauty secrets by madhuri". I feel it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshpradhans (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure! here! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
But its not mentioned, i din't think any bollywood actress have had her own line of beauty products. article should mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshpradhans (talk • contribs) 07:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Niteshpradhans about this one though. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit Nene

Please rename the page to Madhuri Dixit Nene her official name. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If she starts using that name on a professional basis, in film credits, etc. then it would be appropriate, but not until then. BollyJeff || talk 14:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
She does I guess. She is working on the

Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from other editors please? BollyJeff || talk 13:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I dont agree with the renaming as of today. WP:COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." As of today, newspapers (i checked the latest references used in her article) refer to her as "Madhuri Dixit" only in their headlines. So does the official website of Devdas and Aaja Nachle, which were released long after her marriage. The three examples cited above are of pages that she owns. Its natural for her to use "Nene" in it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Important resources have already started using her official name
  • "Singer-actor Ali Zafar got to meet one of his favourite personalities, actor Madhuri Dixit Nene," [1] Hindustan Times
  • "Madhuri Dixit Nene is the latest actor to join the bandwagon of celebrities like" [2] Daily Bhaskar
  • and most importantly Times of India cites "Shah Rukh Khan bonded with everyone from Madhuri Dixit Nene" [3] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Not required as of now. Thanks. - VivvtTalk 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Not common name as of now. 8 for Dixt Nene v/s only "Madhuri Dixit" 114 --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur with the consensus that its not necessary to change the name now. Let's see what crops up after Ishqiya 2 and how she handles her name in a professional context. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Brahmin status

I cannot see page 134 of the cited source for the statement that includes She was born Madhuri Shankar Dixit to Shankar and Snehlata Dixit, of a Marathi brahmin family. However, it appears to be a series of potted biographies of Bollywood people and unlikely to contain an interview or direct quotation of Dixit herself. For this reason, we need to remove "Marathi brahmin" because without self-identification the claim of caste status is a breach of WP:BLP, just as a claim to be associated with one or another religion would be. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, Nene is also from a Marathi Brahmin family, which carries a deadlinked source that is highly unlikely to have contained self-identification. In addition, it should be noted that the alleged Brahmin status of these people is just caste puffery: it has no bearing on their notability etc but reflects "glory" on other caste members (or, at least, so those members often think). This is why one very rarely sees the caste of a criminal mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Birth year

A recent spat of IP users have been changing the birth year from 1968 to 1967, and it seems they are correct. Multiple media and journalist entries present her dob as 15 May 1967. Listing a few below so that editors don't get into disagreements later.

  • MAdhuri Shankar Dixit was born on May 15, 1967 to a Marathi Barhmin family, Encyclopedia of Bollywood–Film Actresses, Renu Saran, p. 53, ISBN 9789350836910
  • MAdhuri was born in 1967 when the Barjatyas... Bollywood's Top 20: Superstars of Indian Cinema, Bhaichand Patel, p. 205, ISBN 9780670085729
  • Dixit, Madhuri b. 1967, ranked among the popular... Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema, edited by Gulazāra, Govind Nihalani, Saibal Chatterjee, PT. 573, ISBN 9788179910665
  • Birthday special: Madhuri turns 47, The Express Tribune, Saman Javed

There are countless other sources listed for 1967. So resting the case here. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding Image

Adding a image of Dixit with her husband. The image is there on wikimedia. So does anyone have a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuayb Sahib (talk • contribs) 13:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Explain where and why do you want to add it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In Personal Life as it can provide an image of her husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuayb Sahib (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that image is a copyright violation and I have nominated it for deletion. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Currently this section is placed under the section of Non-acting work. I do not think this might be proper as this is not her work primarily and is a controversy related to her endorsements. Any thoughts on how it might be better placed ? Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit not a UNICEF goodwill ambassador=

User talk:IndianBio has reverted the edit of mine in which he added back the information that she is an UNICEF GoodWill Ambassador citing http://www.unicef.org/about/annualreport/files/India_Annual_Report_2014.pdf

The above report just mentions the actress name in two places viz "Madhuri Dixit advocated for children’s rights in UP " and "; engagement of children with celebrity Madhuri Dixit in Uttar Pradesh"

Please note that participation in one event does not make anyone a UNICEF good will Ambassador.It has to be an appointment . When I removed the unsourced information on her being a UNICEF goodwill ambassador I had thoroughly checked the list and did not find her name in any of the Categories (International/ Regional/National )here http://www.unicef.org/people/people_ambassadors.html

I do not think there is any other official source of UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. Is there any ?

Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Third party media confirms this ample amount of times. Please keep in mind that Official sources websites can be misleading as well and might not be updated, also she is listed in the Indian website for speaking up. You might be correct that the Goodwill Ambassador needs further research, which is itself validated by third party media. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that UNICEF will have improper data on its official website and it is updated since data from 2015 too is available (the opinion about official websites being misleading is clearly a bias of the person mentioning so). On careful examination of the third party media sources given I am of the opinion that she is not the UNICEF goodwill ambassador/advocate but was the brand ambassador for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was organised by UNICEF in 2014. The two are completely different since this is a brand ambassador for a particular event only. The same is concurred by the actress'es official website here : http://madhuridixit-nene.com/latest/post/madhuri-dixit-nene-unicef-brand-ambassador-dedicates-literature-carnival-lucknow-child-rights Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Since there is no information being provided on her being a UNICEF goodwill ambassador in 2014 and the so called sources do not meet the criteria of Wikipedia Verifiability i will remove the information from the lead paragraph . Please note about Wikipedia policy which says this:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties" Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Madhuri Dixit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

not given enough credit

Why no. 1 bollywood actress rank of Madhuri in various online polls like rediffmail, imdb, watch mojo, filmfare etc not listed here? Vinitvsankhe (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's promotional fluff? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016

>>> COPYVIO removed by Biwom (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC) <<<

Suboorbakht (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

References

@Suboorbakht:  Not done – WP:TLDR. Please condense your request. At this point, I can't tell what you want done, and not done, etc. Regards— MeowMoon (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Consider me another person who doesn't understand what you want done here. Phrases like "During the mid 90s she was called the female Amitabh Bachchan for her sheer dominance in the box office." would have no place in a neutral encyclopedia, because neutral encyclopedias don't describe people as having "sheer dominance". Why is a wax statue noteworthy? One of the Top 33 women who made India proud? What? In an encyclopedia? If you want to start a Madhuri Dixit fan club full of juicy trivia and puffery, please do so, but this is an academic reference and we need to have some limitations on the content we include. We're not here to detail every aspect of her life, only the most noteworthy points. Oh, and "At the age of 40, an UK magazine dubbed her as the second most sexy woman of Asia, this is outstanding for a woman of 40 and a mother of 2." You might choose to avoid editorials like this in the future. It reeks of ageism and sexism rolled into one and you're bound to offend someone for no good reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

{{request edit}}

Personal life

@Vickymehta03: I would like to bring the following into your attention.

Hello, In the section "personal life" Madhuri Dixit's page it is written about her affair with Sanjay Dutt. It is written as if it was a well acknowledged fact. But actually it was a media made up rumor which both the actors totally denied many times (please check the blog link below). It also says that Madhuri ended the relationship after Sanjay was arrested, but it was nothing of the sort as they never had anything more than friendship. Two of the reference articles are lists of "top affairs", these articles are generally of gossip quality and never care to be factually correct. The mention of Madhuri's father is also untrue as verified by the actress herself at that time. Madhuri usually was always accompanied by her parents in the film sets. She had a great relationship with her father till his death. In fact in a filmfare issue of 1992 there was a story about Madhuri and her father's relationship. The other article by Bharti Pradhan in "The Telegraph" is factually incorrect, Madhuri did deny the relationship before TADA (check the link below). Sanjay also denied it before and after the relationship. Even in the article the journalist only hypothesized about the relationship, she says Madhuri never showed any external sign, which itself proves it was just an imagination of few, Bharti Pradhan also fails to mention that they DID work together in the film Mahanta till 1997. And Sanjay visited her in Chicago, spoke great things abt her in kwk 2007. So even her imagination is based on many false assumptions.

This is why they continued to have mutual respect. Original scans of old interviews of both the actors, and others confirm it. The following blog has several scans of original interviews of both the actors' and others from those years. https://madhurimania.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/madhuri-and-sanjay-affair/

After minutely reading this blog with all the original interview scans, a rational person cannot have any doubt that this is only a rumor.

With regarding film actors lot of gossips float around, Wikipedia cannot be a place of mentioning all those gossips. Specially this one is a mere imagination of some and spread around with a vile intention. Such entry vilifies the dignity of a person and also compromises the authenticity of Wikipedia. So I would request you to edit out the first paragraph of "personal life" from her page.

@Oshwah:

Thanks Analyst2017 (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Analyst2017[1]

Edit Request (personal life)

[I made the request few days ago, trying to elaborate it again] [2] Personal Life

"During the making of Saajan in 1990, Madhuri had an affair with Sanjay Dutt who was married at the time to Richa Sharma. Despite her father's objections, the relationship continued.[105] However, with Dutt's arrest under TADA in 1993, Madhuri ended the relationship.[106]Talking about this break-up, film journalist Bharati Pradhan reported in The Telegraph that "Madhuri had always been a clean player. A Dutt-Dixit alliance would’ve been disastrous and she was too sensible not to see it."[107] The above entry compromises wikipedia rules. Because, 1) it tries to pass opinions as facts. 2) It lacks neutrality. The first line authoritatively states the phenomenon, as if it is beyond reasonable doubt. In the references themselves they say it was alleged, the first one mentions about crews which are unnamed. The sources are anonymous. The mention of her father is also unsubstantiated as it is not supported by any verified source and Madhuri herself refuted it at that time. Neither her father or anyone close to her ever confirmed her father's view about the alleged rumour. The second reference also mentions the word "rumoured relationship". It mentions what Madhuri said to stardust after TADA arrest but has no reference or mention of what she said before that. it also completely ignores what Sanjay said about it before or after his arrest. Both of the above articles are by unnamed person and can be seen they are of gossip quality. The third article is by a journalist named Bharti Pradhan (in 2011), so it is a person with name. She writes, "Sanju was smitten was written all over his face (and he didn’t deny it to his buddies)". Interestingly she writes based on what was written on "his face" but completely ignores what he said to the press in official interviews, this so called "buddies" of his are also unnamed. She writes, "Madhuri did not make it official" but she does not mentions what Madhuri said to the press. What is interesting in the article is, the journalist herself admits "She (Madhuri) never let her guard down" i.e., she acknowledges that not any of Madhuri's action or her word supported the rumour. Later the journalist goes in length to show how specifically Madhuri told her about no relationship after his TADA arrest. She mentions Madhuri never before told anything explicitly to her before TADA arrest but does not mention what Madhuri said it elsewhere. She completely ignores what Sanjay said before and after his bail from TADA. He explicitly not only denied any relations ship with Madhuri but he said "I went up and said sorry to her, because she was under public scrutiny for no fault of hers" Movie, Oct, 1993 (This was after his bail from the arrest). Bharti Pradhan wrote how she knew they would not work in "Satte pe Satta", as if they never worked or met after his TADA arrest. The fact is they did work in film Mahantaa that realised in 1997. Sanjay did come and speak about her in koffee with Karan Madhuri episode in 2007. later in his own episode in 2010 he once again chose Madhuri as his favourite co-star. He also met Madhuri and her family in ChicagoThe journalist makes a hypothesis based on reading Madhuri's "mind" and Sanjay's "face", she leaves out a lot of actually events, official statements to further propagate her narrative. The references clearly show that the rumour was only a rumour, so a neutral mention should look like this, "Madhuri Dixit was rumoured to have a relationship with Sanjay Dutt by media, and it was rumoured that Madhuri ended the relationship after Sanjay Dutt's TADA arrest. [the three existing references here] However, both of them denied the rumour before and after his arrest. In his interview after his bail Sanjay denied it again and when asked how did he feel when he first saw the story broke out, he said "I went up and said sorry to her, because she was under public scrutiny for no fault of hers". Madhuri Dixit and Sanjay Dutt worked together in Mahaanta after that in 1997.[the blog reference here]". I am aware that a blog is usually not accepted as reference in wiki, but it says "usually" and here the blog contains scans of original interviews that relate critically with the story. So, as Wiki is supposed to be "neutral" and "research based" the editor should take everything into account while writing a story and present all parts neutrally. Otherwise it should omit it altogether. Analyst2017 (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Analyst2017

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Madhuri Dixit. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Madhuri Dixit. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Caste references

The caste reference seems a lot more prevalent on Wikipedia when it comes to certain sub-castes. For example, for Marathi celebrities like Madhuri Dixit or those of Saraswat or Konkanastha Brahmin background the caste is prominently mentioned. If that is the case, why not mention the caste for everyone? For example, Rahul Dravid is a Deshastha Brahmin, why not mention his caste as well? It is fairly well-referenced and well-sourced. It's the same case with celebrities like Sridevi or Rani Mukherjee. Why not mention their castes as well? The pattern that seems prevalent on Wikipedia is that there seems a penchant for mentioning the caste when it comes to certain backgrounds and it is not as innocuous as it is made out to be by the caste apologists on Wikipedia. Ideally, the caste should not be mentioned, however, if we do have to mention it, at least there should be consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72c8:3e00:cf3:b1a:96eb:9db5 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I am also not in favour of castes, and agree that there should be consistency, I re-added the caste, following a requested edit, as in the citation she clearly identifies as being Konkanastha Brahmin - and self-identification is the Wikipedia requirement for inclusion/exclusion. As for other people Other stuff exists- those cases need to be taken up at their own articles, and are irrelevant to the inclusion/exclusion on this article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course the references to other celebrities should be taken up in their individual articles, however, I mentioned the larger point of the caste display issue over here due to the prominence of Madhuri Dixit as a celebrity (and the fact that the caste reference was living on for her without citation for a long time). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72C8:3E00:692D:2AC0:BF79:C9B3 (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It's difficult to manage these sorts of things when there are tens of thousands of people of varying flavours of Indian backgrounds who show up to our many articles and make these changes. Many are casual editors who don't care about consistency, sourcing, or community guidelines. Members of our Noticeboard for India-related topics prefer that any statement ascribing a living person to a caste needs to be supported by a clear self-identification, rather than what other people say. Some folks (ex: Amitabh Bachchan) have rejected caste labels. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing Article

This article needs to be reedited due to lack of neutrality as well as various section including beginning lacks complete neutrality. If required I will be there doing it. Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Artistry and media image

Madhuri Dixit topped the survey among Bollywood's female actresses and was placed fourth in the overall list in the survey '100 Greatest Bollywood Stars' published by British Asian weekly newspaper 'Eastern Eye'. where Amitabh Bachchan emerged as the greatest Bollywood star celebrating 100 years of Indian cinema. for which Madhuri tweeted "I am proud to be a part of that and I am also proud to be a part of the whole movement where cinema is getting better and we are trying to do something different,".The others who made it to the top 10 included names like Raj Kapoor (5), Nargis (6), Dev Anand (7), Waheeda Rehman (8), Rajesh Khanna (9) and Sridevi (10).Other notable stars to make the cut include Salman Khan (11), Aamir Khan (14), Dharmendra (15), Hema Malini (18), Madhubala (24), Kajol (30), Hrithik Roshan (32), Rani Mukerji (38), Kareena Kapoor (43), Mumtaz (50), Saif Ali Khan (59),Priyanka Chopra (86) and Katrina Kaif (93). Sumit Kumar Saxena (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Madhuri Zsmaheshs (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

I see that the article has been going through some development. I appreciate the efforts of whoever involved, but the choice of words, section titles (just what I've noticed so far from a quick view, need to dig further) is pure WP:FANCRUFT, full of WP:PEACOCK terms, and altogether a violation of WP:POV.

Moreover, PlanetBollywood and Upperstall are not WP:RS and their reviews are better removed. I'll look through my lists of archived stuff and will try to find reviews of Dixit's films. Shahid • Talk2me 03:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Planet Bollywood, Upperstall reviews have been here since 2012. Priyamal21 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I am removing them if they are not WP:RS Priyamal21 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't blame you at all. I think it's sad that so little is available for 1990's Indian cinema online. Hardly any reviews and one has to dig arduously in the archives to find something. But it's okay. I'll find others. Shahid • Talk2me 12:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

RESULT
Fail

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: DiplomatTesterMan (talk · contribs) 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I will take up this review. I'll have a read and will message back with comments and the formal review. DTM (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing citations which are not formatted correctly and which do not have proper detailing; excessive citations at at least six locations in "Early life and background" and "Artistry and media image"; WP:LEAD has not been followed — I think I may have to fail this GA nom outright even before conducting a full review. TheGoodIndian, are you serious about this GA nomination? DTM (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: Sorry to hear that the article is not up to the desired standard. I haven't been involved with it at all, but it felt like an informative and well-cited piece. Please feel free to reject the nomination if that is the right thing to do. TheGoodIndian (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I would have also liked to see this become a good article but there are too many basic improvements which need to be addressed first for serious GA consideration. "Informative and well-cited" are not the only GA requirements — Wikipedia:Good article criteria. But in the future I am sure this will become a GA article. Thanks. DTM (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article

Useful, old one from Indian Express, p. 26. Shahid • Talk2me 16:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Isn't it better to note what her screen persona was like? Can't we write something, "she has been noted by film critics for her beauty, strong performances, and dancing skills"... Just giving an example, not saying this is exactly what should be added. Shahid • Talk2me 07:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit's Introduction Page.

Dear Sir, It has been noted that in the introduction section of Madhuri Dixit's Wikipedia page, it is mentioned that "Dixit's early career was shaped up mostly by romantic and family dramas before she expanded her repertoire." I would like to add my view as She is a Legendary Popular Actress. Keeping in view kindly edit the page and restore it to previous explanation. 103.163.195.231 (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree to it. Justifying by what her early career was shaped is ridiculous. Every legend starts ordinary and then succeed gradually. The phrase Dixit's early career was shaped up mostly by romantic and family dramas before she expanded her repertoire" should be removed AIL601 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

Remove the phrase "Dixit's early career was shaped up mostly by romantic and family dramas before she expanded her repertoire" in the introduction section. It is illogical and unnecessary. The introduction should be reduced. AIL601 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove the phrase "Dixit's early career was shaped up mostly by romantic and family dramas before she expanded her repertoire".

It does not make any sense to write such things. It does not give a true picture. Replace the phrase Dixit's early career was shaped up mostly by romantic and family dramas before she expanded her repertoire with "Dixit has been praised for her Acting & Dancing Skills and Screen Presence". AIL601 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I expect the immediate update on it please. She is a reputed personality and the page with recommended changes should be undertaken on priority. AIL601 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

[4] Shahid • Talk2me 13:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

1. In the introduction, instead of writing One of the most popular leading ladies of Indian Cinema write - "One of the most popular actresses of Indian Cinema. 2. In the introduction, remove - "Dixit's early career was shaped up mostly by romantic and family dramas before she expanded her repertoire." 3. Add the reference of her webseries The Fame Game in the introduction. AIL601 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

The line "Dixit's early career was shaped mostly by romantic ........... before she expanded her repertoire" should be removed as it is unnecessary. AIL601 (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It seems to be a fair summation of her early career. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

Remove the phrase "Early career being shaped mostly by romantic and family drama before she expanded her repertoire" in the introductory section. This particular phrase is irrelevant and unnecessary. AIL601 (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We need to discuss this first and achieve consensus. Shahid • Talk2me 11:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit Page Introduction Section

Remove the phrase "Early career being shaped mostly by roles in romantic and family drama before she expanded her repertoire" in the introductory section. This particular phrase is irrelevant and unnecessary. AIL601 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@AIL601 I think it is relevant. Please discuss and achieve consensus if you think it should be removed. I really do not understand why you feel so strongly about it - this sentence is actually quite okay. Also, I don't think she is partciularly recognised for her acting skills. She is a star, and was never seen the way, say, Smita Patil, was. Shahid • Talk2me 12:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Condemn the Editing of the Page

Why are you insisting continuously to mention about what her early career was about? Do we have such information in other actor's introduction page? If yes then please give me the examples. There is a seperate section for early career in every actor's page. Why is it needed to refer anything about that in the introduction page? Is it that extra ordinary to mention as if she was doing some kind of repeated roles and same films? I condemn the editing of her page. I strictly oppose and request for further discussion. AIL601 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@AIL601: The question is why you insist to remove a perfectly suitable sentence which summarises very well the early career of this actress as it is presented in the body text. This is the idea of a lead per WP:LEAD. Indeed, her early career consisted of mostly romance and family films and was shaped by them, and she later expanded her repertoire. Dil, Beta, Raja, Saajan, HAHK - all these early films which established her career are mainstream romance or family films. This sentence is not only representative, it's actually a compliment to Dixit, whose career grew over the years. As for acting, I'm afraid Dixit is not particularly acknowledged for her acting skills. Shahid • Talk2me 10:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all You are ignoring the fact that Most of the Bollywood Films are in the genre of Romance and Musicals. In the 90s it was even more common. Bollywood plots have tended to be family and love triangles. They are a mixture of Comedy, Romance Dance and Song. Now we look at the Early career of Madhuri Dixit ( Pre Hum Aapke Hain Koun) - 1. Tezaab - Action Drama. Her role of a Stage Dancer and a rebel daughter. 2. Dil - Romantic Action Drama - Her role was not a typical lover. She played a blunt mischievous girl. 3. Saajan - Roamtic Love Traingle Independent girl helping her single mother for livelihood 4. Beta - Village - Family - Drama - Her role was of a literate and intelligent wife of an illiterate husband who fight against the injustice prevailing in the family. 5. Khalnayak - Action Drama -Role of a Cop who becomes an undercover against a criminal to support her lover and the challenge she faces in doing that. Special mention of Dayavan, Prem Pratigya and Prahaar If we go by your theory of playing versitile roles in various genres then she fulfills the condition and then her career cannot be categorized. It is illogical and infact laughable. Now coming to Acting Part, What kind of acting other mainstream bollywood actors do that she doesn't? She has constantly been praised about her performance in films. Even in her first film Abodh, She was praised for her part. Then from Tezaab onwards she has constantly been praised. If that is not enough, films like Mrityudand, Prem Granth,Lajja , Pukar, Devdas, Dedh Ishqiya etc etc are the testimony of her fine acting which many of the Bollywood actresses lack in the Mainstream Cinema if we talk about. Awaiting your Reply AIL601 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@AIL601: I think ignoring the fact that her early career was shaped up primarily by mainstream films, mostly romantic and family films, mostly masala, is just pointless. The career section is there, and the lead must be a summary of it. I do not go by my personal analysis of her career, but by looking at the sources. Yes, Mrityudand, Pukar and Lajja are defintiely a departure (and that's why we're saying she "expanded her repertoire") but previous examples are all mainstream films of the same kind: Tezaab, Tridev, Dil, Beta, Khalnayak, Saajan, Raja - are all of the same mainstream masala and no matter what role she plays - she is more or less the same charismatic dancing queen. She had a minuscule part in Parinda; Prahaar is indeed unusual but she had a very small role and it's very rare, and Anjaam is very good and we do mention it, but it didn't shape her early career.
As for her acting - indeed, she got good reviews throughout her career - but her positiong has always been that of a huge iconic star than a stupendous actress. She didn't have the kind of critical recognition strictly for her acting skills like Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil, Tabu, and Manisha Koirala. Even previous mainstream actresses like Rekha and Dimple Kapadia enjoyed better critical success and experimented in true art films and won national acting awards. Having said all that, I still do not understand the complaint here. The sentence is actually very efficient: "Noted by critics for her beauty, dancing skills, and strong characters, Dixit's early career was shaped up mostly by romantic and family dramas before she expanded her repertoire." - it's fair and a very positive commentary. As quite a fan of Dixit myself, I'm content. Shahid • Talk2me 11:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not writing as a fan to be honest. But categorizing the career of an iconic actress in a nutshell is completely unjustified. Thankfully I have never seen in a Sridevi or Kajol article where they have been introduced like this. While Sridevi did a plethora of Hindi adaptation of South Indian films directed by South Indian Directors the contents of which were far beyond logic. From 1983 to 1986 she continuously worked in those films before expanding her repertoire with Nagina and Mr. India, Chandni etc. Infact Nagina and Nigahein were the genre not to be proud of. Thankfully I never got to read anything in Kajol's article anything like that her 90% of the Successful Films happen to be SRK films. The point is simple. You are trying to benchmark things against Madhuri in a very harsh manner. The statement early career being shaped up by some genre looks very pointless and illogical because from the beginning she experimented in varius genre. Apart from the different films which I mentioned earlier, there was also a film called Aansoo bane angaare where she played the double role of a mother and daughter with ease. In the film, Zindagi Ek Jua, she played a drug addicted. It's very sad and very disappointing to see the wikipedia page of an iconic actress of the Nation with such statements. We do not expect much appreciation but then these demeaning statements should also not be there. AIL601 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@AIL601: Actually Sridevi's article does mention her screen persona, but honestly, this is not how we work. See WP:WHATABOUT. Then again, this introductory sentence is good, it is a compliment to a star who decided to expand her range and it's wonderful. There's nothing demeaning about this sentence at all, she was a mainstream star who was appreciated for her dance and roles. And the genre is the same - mainstream Hindi cinema, the great majority of her early films fall into the same bracket. Honestly, the examples you're giving here, like Zindagi Ek Jua, were no less commercial and mainstream and they were actually not received well, so I don't know how you're even bringing this film as an example. The question is which films established her, and clearly, she got most of her stardom for romance and family films. But let's see what others say when they join our discussion. Shahid • Talk2me 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Additions to be done

1. Add about Maja Ma and her performance in detail 2. Add about The Fame Game and her performance in detail 3. Add about her second single Tu hai Mera AIL601 (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://madhurimania.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/madhuri-and-sanjay-affair/
  2. ^ http://bollygossipp.blogspot.com.au//
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madhuri_Dixit/Archive_1&oldid=1172590096"