Talk:Rani Mukerji/Archive 1

Complete revision

A very enthusiastic anon rewrote the article in Indian English. Rather than just revert, I rewrote again. Anon, I don't know how to disapprove without sounding like a scolding English teacher ... Indian English is an estimable, lively dialect but it is not encyclopedic. I looked at the article before you rewrote it; it was a bit disorganized, but the English was at least correct. The anon took standard English and turned it into phrases that were just every so slightly wrong and strange from the viewpoint of standard British or American English. I don't suppose that matters too much if you're writing a completely NEW article -- if you supply good material, someone else can do the copyediting. But it seems like a waste of everyone's time to turn standard English into Hinglish, which then has to be corrected.

While I was rewriting that, I reorganized the article, which had gotten rather disjointed as movies and awards were added one by one. Zora 07:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

oscar nominated foreign films?

Would somebody research just how many (and which) films India has had nominated for 'Best Foreign Film' at the Hollywood Oscars? I can't quite believe that Rani has been in four out of seven nominations! Autumnleaf 15:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. is she related to Lady Ranu Mukherji who used to hold sway in Calcutta society in the 1960s? Autumnleaf 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Did someone say that she had been in four out of seven nominations? I don't find that in the article. Praps it has been removed already. I have been googling assiduously to find a list of India's submissions to the Oscars and I can't find one. We need one! As to Calcutta society in the 1960s -- I never moved in such exalted social circles! <g> Zora 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

mangal pandey??

We should really include Mangal Pandey - The Rising as one of her recent movies. (My account is Shell but I have still not recieed my password even after asking to recover it)

It was there, but under The Rising. They changed the English name of the film several times I think. It was the Rising, Mangal Pandey: The Rising, Mangal Pandey, and Ballad of Mangal Pandey. Confusing. Zora 02:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting

Anon, PLEASE don't change the opening para to read that Rani believes that the name change has been lucky for her, based on numerology. That is muddled thinking. She changed it in the first place because she believed in numerology. She thinks that it has been lucky for her because her life has improved, not because of numerology. Those are TWO separate concepts. Please don't revert my edits. You are trying to puff up Rani and I am trying to keep the article cool and encyclopedic. Zora 00:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That Rani1 image is a copyright violation soon to be deleted. Zora 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a fan site, this is an encyclopedia

Shez 15, this is not a fan website. It is simply not appropriate to fill the article with gushing adoration of Rani. We have to write the sort of article that will still be good twenty years from now, when Rani is playing mother roles or gone from Bollywood, and younger hotter actresses have seized the limelight. Rani's page should be just as objective as the pages for Nargis or Madhubala. Also, please stop linking to the copyvio santabanta picture. Zora 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Shez 15, the Hum Tum picture is gone because it's a copyvio. I didn't do that, someone else did. I moved the other picture into its place. Please stop reverting to your fan edits. Zora 23:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture

The picture that's up now is really really bad. Someone mucked with the aspect ratio and she looks skewed. We need a good public domain picture. Magazine covers seem to be OK -- can someone scan a recent movie mag cover and put it up? Zora 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Again pictures

This is, as mentioned above, *not* a fansite and three pictures, two of them with copyvios and the other with lots of text won't do. One picture were you see how she looks like is completely enough. --Plumcouch 17:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Numerology ?

Rani has lately changed her surname from Mukherjee to Mukerji. She believes in numerology ... Is it a joke ? I think " Mukherjee " is a latin translation for the original name " रानी मुखर्जी " which is written in devanagari characters. Can someone tell me more ? (Waaz, french Wikipédia).

It's actually no joke, as many names and titles are changed because according to numerology, their owners believe another combination of letters will provide better luck. For most recent examples of people changing names and titles according to numerology, see actor Vivek Oberoi who changed his name to Viveik Annand Oberoi because of numerology and director Rakesh Roshan, who changed his movie title Krish to Krrrish, because a popular numerologist told him to do so. It's actually quite common in India. --Plumcouch 17:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. There needs to be a source for this. Autumnleaf 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, they only change the way their names are transliterated in the Roman alphabet. It works because of the high level of ambiguity inherent in the Roman alphabet. deeptrivia (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found 3 sources on the net :
1 - Rani should use the spelling of her name 'Mukerji'. She needs to add an alphabet in her full name. If she does, her full name will come to Laxmi's number. [1]
So ... her name isn't Mukerji (maybe Mukherjee ?) and she should change to Mukerji.
2 - Rani Mukherjee just recently changed her last name for superstitious purposes. [2]
And now, it's Mukerji.
3 - Rani said : Well I have not changed my surname for numerological reasons. Just that ‘Mukerji’ is the name on my passport and my birth certificate. [3]
But Indian Government spell her name 'Mukerji' but as you can see, Rani doesn't say "Mukerji is my name".
Does someone find a more reliable source ? I think it's not enough to change Rani's last name, even if it please the fans (like Shez). And even if Rani's new name come to Laxmi's number ... Can you believe that in her most awarded film, Black, Rani's name is spelled "Mukherjee" and not "Mukerji" ? It's incredible, my DVD may be deewana (or diwana ?).Waaz 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Black statement

I removed the statement on Black because though Rani was in the movie, i feel it should be in the Black article. Pa7 17:42 26 January 2006

statement concerning poll results

I just checked the list. Rani was positioned at number 50, not in the top ten. So i have changed that statement Pa7 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ONE picture is enough

Rani fans can go to google or her fanclub to get more pictures. The HUM TUM picture is really good as it shows her face properly. The magazine picture is not as good because of the headlines. Fans of Rani may love her but other people don't. Please stop adding the pictures - this is an encyclopedia not a fansite. Thank you

About the KGKG screenshot and the calender shot

The screenshot was not tagged correctly. Furthermore, it was manipulated with dual colour, resulting in the yellowish look. And the Dabboo Ratnani calender shot is clearly Photoshop manipulated (look at her eyes). I fell that pictures of a person should illustrate what the person looks like. I'm not sure of photoshop-ed images are useful when it comes to that. --Plumcouch 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Plumcouch

You say that the the Dabboo Ratnani calender shot is clearly Photoshop manipulated (look at her eyes). You should watch some of Rani's movies before commenting. Her eyes are probably a world phenomenon. They are really beautiful and out of this universe. This picture is real and not photoshopped. You should see other pictures from the calendar and they are also real.

Be that as it may, the calender shot wasn't tagged correctly. Some of Dabboo Ratnami's calender shots are displayed on IndiaFM.com and it says "All rights reserved". As for the KKKG still: it's photo-manipulated with dual-colour (as is the Dabboo-Ratnami shot, but what the hey). --Plumcouch 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Shez and his IP from editing this article?

This is getting extremely wearisome. Shez is obsessed with Rani, and proving that she's "better" than all other living actresses, and will just not leave this article alone. He keeps filling it up with fancruft which we then have to delete. Not to mention attacking other actress articles, to prove that they are lesser beings than Rani. Are we going to have to try to get some administrative action to have him blocked?

Shez, do you have any comments? Would you be willing to just leave this article, and the other actress articles, and any movie article connected with Rani, alone? Can you contribute to Bollywood articles in a collegial way, without sliding into Rani-mania? Zora 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to tone Rani's article down a bit - it's still a bit over the top, but if Shez leaves it the way it is as I am writing this and everyone could live with it, maybe we don't have to block anyone's IP. If things get out of control again, I'm all for blocking, because, as Zora mentions it, it *is* extremely exhausting. --Plumcouch 01:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zora, on blocking the IP address. Also I feel that there are some bits in the article that still need to be toned down. I got rid of the fact that she is distinguished and an award-winning actress, because nearly every Bollywood actor or actress has won an award. Also info like the Temptations 2004 bombing is also applicable to other articles such as Priyanka Chopra, SRK and Preity Zinta as they were all there as well. Though I think that would be more gossip material. Other than that go ahead -- Pa7 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Shez added more stuff and I pruned the article again. I removed the bombing info, and all the "lists" stuff, which should be winkled out of other articles as well. It's journalistic ephemera (like a People magazine list of "Beautiful People of 2005!!!") and really doesn't deserve to be kept for the ages. It clutters up articles with factoids and makes them close to unreadable.

If we're to do an RFC for this bloke, it would be well to continue efforts to "reach" him. He doesn't seem to communicate well. I get messages on my talk page that seem like attempts to flatter me, mixed with threats.

So, Shez, are you reading this? Is there some way to work this out? Zora 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous IP address made changes since my last edits on this article. I contended that there should only be one fair use image on this page. That entry was reverted. User:Shez 15's edits make this page look much like a fan site rather than an NPOV wikipedia page. Hence, I am reverting his and the anonymous IP's edits to last version by me. Thank you --Andy123(talk) 03:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi protected the page so that he can't log and edit in as an anon. I have also posted a message on his and the corresponding IP's talk pages to try and bring him to this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed fancruft

If you say that Rani was née something or other, you are implying that it was her maiden name, not her married name. This is not the terminology used for name changes.

Shez changed all the references to "supporting actress" to phrases like "appeared", so that the casual reader wouldn't know that she wasn't the heroine of the film. This is deceptive.

I removed all the references to Top Ten lists and the like. Ephemera, not encyclopedic. I removed notes re ad appearances, complete with links to the products she was advertising. This just plain looks sleazy. We aren't here to advertise soap and the like. Zora 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zora. There should be no POV pushing here on the page. --Andy123(talk) 13:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I talked to User:Shez15 and I hope he/she gets it. Besides that I'm all with Zora, except for the thing Shez did with Rani's picture. He/she created some sort of box along with birthdate and movies she's famous for. Someone put a note on Shez's talk page which contained links to articles of actresses that have reached featured status and Lindsay Lohan had the same box around her picture - I guess Shez just copied it. Yeah - besides that, well, no advertisment. Maybe we can add the fact that she's brand ambassador for *something* and that's it. --Plumcouch 20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Plumcouch, if you think we should restore the box, I'll go along with it. I generally trust your judgement. I probably should have noticed that he'd done something helpful. As for brand ambassadors -- I think that's advertising in disguise. Not notable. The only "brand ambassador" business that might be worth noting are Aamir's ads for Coca-Cola, or Shahrukh's appearance in the bath with the rose petals, because those got lots of news coverage. If I see it on Sepia Mutiny, Rediff, or Outlook India, I figure it's notable :)

Shez, if you introduced things bit by bit and talked to us, rather than just beavering away incommunicado, we might be able to get somewhere. You try something and say, "Does that work?" and if it doesn't, you drop it and try something else. Zora 21:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

I don't know what the dispute is over, but I know there is a dispute. This page has been protected from editing until further notice so you fellows can work this dispute out here on the talk. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The editors must post comments about the unprotection of the page for now. I propose the following.

• User:Shez 15 has been civil and has assumed good faith, along with the other editors.
• He should keep himself from posting POV material on the page.
• In case he does not comply with the consensus and continues reversions and edit-warring, he shall be blocked from editing this page.
• In case the anonymous ip engages in revert-warring, it should be instantly blocked.

Please post your views below this. I Support this proposal --Andy123(talk) 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page after it was locked for 24 hrs. Please ensure that the dispute is sorted out on this page. Regards =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protected again

Hi, i thought everyone was happy with the article. What i mean to say is what happened?? I thought only admins were allowed to add the protection template? Also User:Shez 15 has joined Wikipedia Indian Cinema Project, and from the edit history he is not happy with the article. Basically we have to discuss this because it looks like there is gonna be a edit war between users. Personally i prefer Zora's version just for the fact it is neutral. Anyone else please give their opinion??? We need to sort this out. Pa7 14:06, 06 May 2006 (UTC)

Peace

I think Zora should be banned from the page since she removes all the references and really reduces the article as it was a summary not an encyclopedic profile which contains details. I'm sure Zora can take care of other pages. In addition, it is not her interest. I dedicated myself to this page and should be the only one who should grant changes. Plumcouch is a helpful person. She should be able to tone the page later on as she doesn't remove everything unlike Zora who tears down all materials without thought. She should be forbidden to edit Rani's page. Plus, she knows nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs)

I think it's important to really tone down the fancruft (being "a sensation all over the country", "fortunately", or "instant fame in disguise of a song" are kinda, well -- it's nothing I could read in the Brittanica. Also, information about the films can be read in the film articles, and not in the actors' pages). It's okay to state facts, even more facts, as in other encyclopaedias, but not things that sound like a filmi article. And personally, I was quite happy with User:Zora's last version of the article. It was clean, sleek, and didn't feature any romantic sentiments. Maybe, as a peace offer, we could go over the featured actress articles, to see how things have been done there? --Plumcouch 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well im fine with Plumcouch's proposal. I also prefer Zora's version. The reason she is removing the references is because she has moved the fact as well, so there is no need for a reference. I agree that Shez has dedicated himself to this article but is that fair to other editors who usually do not agree with the things he has written??? We all are with the Indian Cinema Project, should we not be working together?? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so that means we all have the right to edit. There's some editing methods that i do not agree with. The Veer-Zaara Paris premiere would be more appropriate in the Veer-Zaara page. You might as well put that comment on SRK's page and Preity Zinta's page as well. Also the fact that Will Smith presented the trophy to her is not very relevent because other foreign actors or persons do tend to present awards to other Bollywood stars. For example, Brett Lee and Keanu Reeves have both given trophies to Preity Zinta. Someone like Shabana Azmi and Nana Patekar have been in the industry for years and there is hardly anything there. Lets see what Zora has to say as we cannot decide anything without her opinion. Remember guys, if this turns into an edit war then one of us and even all of us will be banned. Shez you may know much more about Rani Mukerji then Zora but try not to attack her personally. Im a huge fan of Bollywood movies and i love to watch them. Rani Mukerji is a brilliant actress, so is Preity Zinta, Madhuri Dixit, Karisma Kapoor and Kajol. They all good in there own right and all of them have given good performances. It would be better to compare and contrast articles, rather then turn it into favouritism. Pa7 13:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also Shez, if you look above there has been some discussion in blocking your IP address and ban you from editing. Lets work together and maybe we can solve this. Pa7 13:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, clearly I like my versions better than Shez' versions. I keep rewriting and he keeps reverting. I don't know how to get through to him. He seems to me to be dedicated to "proving" that Rani is better and more popular than any other actress. We're having a tussle over at Veer-Zaara, where he wants to erase the fact that Rani had a supporting role in the movie, and give her billing over Preity Zinta, the heroine. He keeps track of awards and lists to "prove" that Rani is the best. We had a long-running revert war over at the Rani disambiguation page, where he kept changing "Bollywood actress" to "#1 Bollywood actress". He attacks other actress pages. This has been going on for months. Various people have tried to reason with him and he continues this behavior. Seems to me we have two choices: keep up a unified front and just revert until he gives up, OR, try to get him banned. Having just been dragged through Arbcom mud, I can't say that I'm anxious to go through that again. If someone tries to get him banned, I'm going to have to stay out of it.

This will solve itself eventually -- Rani is going to get old and ugly, like everyone else. But maybe the obsession will transfer to some other actress ...

Shez, if we could get Rani to ASK you to stop making her into a Wikipedia joke, would you stop? Zora 12:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Shez, what are you saying?? You keep on mentioning that Zora has been banned but she hasn't, its just YOU who seems to think she is banned. Also i had a look at your edit history. For now i have left Rani's page alone but you haven't exactly been fair to other actresses. Putting Rani ahead of everyone and making sure everyone knows that Rani is no. 1 etc etc etc. Also you mentioned that Zora has been removing references, but so have you on Preity Zinta's page. You summarised the edit as a grammer correction, Plumcouch later added the references again. You cannot really go round accusing someone of something that you have also done. As for Rani Mukerji, the article has to stay NEUTRAL. Wikipedia cannot take sides. Please try to WORK WITH US. Sooner or later someone is gonna get banned. Pa7 13:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S- Zora has removed the references because she has removed the fact relating to it, so there is no need for it Pa7 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So does a Sportsworld ( the only sportsworld i know of is a sporst magazine) award for best actress deserve mention ? does Pogo channel award deserve mention ? what next the Dombivilli nukkad association award ? The awards should at least be serious awards and not ones being heard of for the first time. Haphar 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, seriously this is getting very tiresome and frustrating. Please everyone lets talk about this again!! I don't think that will do any good either because we did not get anywhere last time. We've got a opportunity to make our thoughts clear on Mukerji, her position in Veer-Zaara, Preity over Rani etc Pa7 01:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rani is a very high-profile actress right now, and she has starred in some very successful films. Whenever I edit the article, I don't try to hide that. Shez thinks I hate Rani, but I don't. She is classically beautiful and a hard-working, talented performer. I don't think she has that extra "oomph" that Madhuri has, or had, but that's just my opinion. You don't see me obsessing over the Madhuri article trying to build her up and denigrate all her rivals. (I don't think I've edited that article in months.) I don't see how we can compromise with a degree of fan-worship that is just not acceptable in an encyclopedia. I just wish that Shez would get his own website (they're very cheap these days) and build his own shrine to Rani, with no one to criticize or control him. He shouldn't try to WP:OWN the Rani article.

Billing goes by stars (male and female) and supporting actors -- not by "seniority" or perceived importance. Shez should not attack other actress articles. Shez should not rewrite movie synopses to inflate Rani's role in the movie. Shez should be willing to let Rani's work speak for itself. He is hurting rather than helping her.

I suppose we could try to get a mediator, but I don't see that working at all, I really don't. Zora 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it, as long as we get some peace here. --Plumcouch 00:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Shez is over 3RR, so I got officious and reported it. If he's blocked, we'll have peace for a while. If he isn't blocked, or when he comes back, I'll invite a mediator here. Someone else might be able to "reach" him. I couldn't; I'm too angry, I'm afraid. Zora 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Shez, you made one of the most uncivil comments I've ever seen anybody make on wikipedia! You deserve to get banned from wikipedia instead of Zora. You don't own wikipedia, and moreover saying "she(Zora) knows nothing" just show your uttermost arrogance. --Aminz 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So beautiful

Gosh, she is so beautiful! --Aminz 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't she? Weird thing to say, but, I think that on the whole, Indian actresses are prettier than American actresses. Zora 05:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

She also looks like persians in this photo --Aminz 06:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Breaking the career section in two

Shez keeps breaking the career section into two chunks. He thinks it makes the article look more elaborate. That is not a good reason for a break. The point he chooses to break seems perfectly arbitrary to me.

Shez also added another one of his "scoring" observations, which I removed.

Finally, Shez keeps restoring HIS version of "Two films in which Rani appeared ..." Shez, your version is not only ungrammatical, it's misleading. Rani did not have a large role in Hey Ram. It's misleading to hint that she was essential to the movie, so that two of "her" films have gone to the Oscars. Zora 01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Awards facts

I've removed two facts regarding Mukerji's awards. The Black awards comment was removed because her awards are already listed and people can see that she has won a majority of awards for Black. Also I removed the Filmfare comment because people can go on the actual page to see who won what awards for what year and who won the awards consecutively. The fact that she won the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress is significant because she is the first actress to have done it. Pa7 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to Fanpage

Shez is back at it, all films and adulatory talk is back on site. Other actors have limited mention of films in the article itself, for Rani despite a very small body of work all the films are being mentioned. Not only are they mentioned, misinformation like X being a hit is also mentioned.Haphar 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

-HEIGHT- What is her exact height? it appears that she has been listed between 4ft11 (150cm) & 5ft5 (165cm), but sources tend to vary. By most accounts however, she is believed to be roughly 152-155cm tall barefoot. Since Mukherjee is usually always wearing massive platforms, it is often difficult to nail her exact height, though she's admitted in many interviews that this is something she would love to change about herself.

Tsunami Donation

That Tsunami thing is not notable, since everyone donated and created Foundations to help people: Vivek Oberoi adopted a village [4], and helped with his Yasodhara Foundation [5]. Subhash Ghai, Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai donated too [6] - sadly to say and to play the Advocatus Diaboli: Like in the New Orleans catastrophy, lots of people take to opportunity to create publicity by donating. --Plumcouch 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

unclarity

Her performance as a human activist in Veer-Zaara was praised and nominated.

Should this read "human rights activist", or what? And for what specific awards was she nominated for this performance?

Fangush

I have removed the following things from the page:

• Black was selected as the world’s 5th best movie of 2005 by Time Magazine

• Her two movies have been India's entry to the Academy Awards. Paheli was the official entry for the 2006 Oscars. Hey Ram (2000) was an earlier entry. (See India's official entry).

• Black, Paheli, and Veer-Zaara were all part of the final process of nomination selection for the 63rd Annual Golden Globe Awards amongst 60 foreign films in 2006

This sort of material belongs in the movie pages NOT in this article. Its as if this is implying that all the movies are great because they all had Rani Mukerji in them. Many other articles on Bollywood actors have limited mention of the success or failure of movies in their articles. It should not be in this article. There is lots more fangush in the article, but I have a feeling that User:Shez15 will not be happy. Also the article is long enough for two images, so I have deleated the image that I uploaded of Mukerji. Thank you. -- Pa7 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Toning down article

I removed all the gushing praise and the gossipy and possibly slanderous remarks re a supposed rivalry with Preity Zinta. That is NOT encyclopedic. Zora 02:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify the Zinta comparison as slanderous. All it said was that the two actresses are often compared because of a similar profile. Nothing wrong with that.Gamesmaster G-9 04:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But we have no references to say that this is so. Myself, I get my movie news from Rediff, which seems a fairly sober source, and they haven't mentioned anything about a rivalry. I suspect that this rivalry exists only in the head of Shez15 -- but I'll be the first to say I'm wrong if someone can come up with some proof that someone besides Shez believes this. Zora 05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Rivalry is the wrong word - in fact, if magazines are to be believed, they were once best of friends. They have also had very similar career paths, and acted together in a number of movies. So, they are often compared to each other. I think this fact is relevant - it does deal with an aspect of her professional life.Gamesmaster G-9 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yabbut -- so far it just seems to be an opinion. I don't have the impression that they are often compared with each other. So we would really need a reference. Personally, I don't see why these two actresses should be linked. Why not Rani and Aish, or Rani and Balya, or Aish and Balya, yadda, yadda ... Zora 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you didn't read many film magazines that were pulished circa 2000. Actually, the comparisons started when two actresses, who were almost equally popular at the time, appeared in two movies together - Chori Chori Chupke Chupke and Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega. Apparently the two got along very well and became great friends (unusual for rival actresses in Bollywood, especially two who were actually competing for similar roles). This friendship was written about a great deal until about 2002, when both of them became extremely popular. Some people claim that they are no longer as close, but are probably still on good terms - they regulalrly compliment each other in the press. The other thing is that they are both favourites of big-banner producers, particularly the Chopra-Johar camp.Gamesmaster G-9 23:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't read anything besides Rediff and Outlook India online. I don't read film magazines. I'm not sure that the comments re Preity are in any way worthy of being featured in an encyclopedia, but if you can come up with one real quote saying that they are seen as a "pair," we can include it.

IMHO, there's a big problem with the Bollywood articles in that fans want them to read just like gossip columns, not like an encyclopedia. The fans flatter the stars, use over-the-top language, and seem to see everything in binary terms (hit or flop, success or failure). I know that this is what people read and that they're imitating a familiar style, but that doesn't make it right. Zora 04:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your definition of what counts as encyclopaedic. True, information in film magazines needs to be taken with more than just a pinch of salt; but if a public person is associated with certain rumours, for an extended period of time, then those should be mentioned (with the caveat that they are, in fact, rumours and hence unconfirmed).

This point apart, I don't even think that the Preity/Rani comparison is "gossip" by any means. When two stars are in their ascendant around the same time, it is only natural that they will be compared. Don't forget that the Hindi-speaking world was once divided between fans of Amitabh Bacchan and Vinod Khanna. Better examples would be Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff, or Saif Ali Khan and Akshay Kumar - actors who have great chemistry together. Rani and Preity fall into the same category, in my opinion. Personally, I would have included it simply for the fact that they are friends - a rarity in Bollywood, especially among female stars.Gamesmaster G-9 18:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for more on the Mukerji-Zinta story, you can watch this [7], if you have 15 minutes to spare: the relevant portions cover the 2nd half of Video 2 and the 1st half of Video 3.Gamesmaster G-9 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WP not a film magazine

I again toned down Shez's worshipful version of the article, removing all the dang polls (ephemera) and the bit re Preity Zinta. It's fairly clear to me that the rivalry between Preity and Rani is all in Shez's head. Spats, squabbles, rivalries, who's dating who -- stuff of film columns, but not an encyclopedia. Someone added the bit re Rani's admiration of Adolf Hitler, but phrased it as if only Jews could possibly be offended by her choice. Anyone European or American would be ASTOUNDED by such a statement. You don't have to be Jewish to think that admiring Hitler (a genoicidal mass murderer) is bizarre. Zora 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the Hitler comment. It's still listed in some of Mukerji's interviews and to say, that I was astounded when I read that is an understatement. If an actress in Germany would issue such a comment, there would be an international outcry, several religious minority would make statements, as well as the neighbourhood countries. Hitler and everything surrounding him is still a very, very big thing here and everyone seems to tiptoe around the topic as not to affront anyone. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, don't be so over-whelmed. It was only a joke. Don't you get it? Anyway, I've put new stuff on the page. Rather than deleting it, understand it and replace if need not be on the page. Thanks. shez_15

With all due respect, but I believe you shouldn't joke about a man who is responsible for killing over fifty million people. And personally, I'm not sure if it *was* joke. There are no references for that. Did she say she was joking? Talking about bad sense of humour there. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 00:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

PLz stop your reverts when you don't know anything about Rani

I know more about her than you. Maybe ten times more. I don't think you shud reverts someone's work when you haven't even read it or understood it. I've put references for everys sentence almost. The fact about her rivalry with Zinta is relevant. It's always in the news. Though, I don't think they fight or anything but it's noticed and you can see how someone treats the other. They're only polite to each other because you have to be politically correct in front of the media. I think you should know this common sense fact. Anyway, it's not created in my head. I've provided references. You shud read each one b4 you have a right to revert. You shud take keen interest on Rani if you want to improve her page and if you are a respected editor. I've never said Oh she's the best in the business even though I think she is and every magazine thinks so too. In any case, I've only been subtle. I said she is one of the most bankable stars, didn't say she is the most. I hope you know what i mean. I think you are doing all this bcoz of personal differences. Look, I'm sorry when i said you were having heavy periods. I've apologized. Now plz work professionally. You can teach me how to write or you cud put it in your words. Instead, you opt to just revert eveything without reading it. I even told you to discuss with me. But guess what, it only took you five minutes to revert. Look, there is a problem here. We should solve it rather than taking short-cuts. I'm tired of explaining it to you. You just think you know everything. Well guess what. You know nata. I've been watching bollywood movies, actor's interviews ever since i was a child. I know the trivia of everything if you ask me. I don't think you are a desi, you don't watch indian television. you don't have dish. you know nothing. so if you wanna know, read those references. Again, on the internet, it doesn't have everything. It's more generalized. In any case, you can't describe an actor by two paragraphs. You need more details than that. I've provided those and you won't read them. Unless you do, you won't get it. I've put everything there. Help me rather than fighting this. If you don't have the energy to help and you're lazy then just leave this page. Do Aishwarya Rai. In the coming days, she will have the most news. Do other actors. Don't waste time here unless you have something to give. Now, I've repeated this again and again but it doesn't get to your head. Does it? Even gamesmaster9 will back me on the preity-rani rivalry. You don't know. When you're in show-biz and when you're in India, there is lots happening. You are an outsider. You don't know these things. We've grown up watching interviews and movies. We know the in and out. Even if you research, say for the next ten years, you still won't know as much as I or any other Indian movie fan. Plz do something creative. Or are you saying you know better? LOL. PLz. Now talk to me b4 reverting. --- shez15 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Wanted!

Can we make Rani Mukerji's page somewhat like Diane Keaton's one. It's a beautiful article. That's why I keep adding facts and stuff to Rani's article to make it more like other ones. We need to think outside the box. If only someone can put those facts in real nice words and make the sentences interesting. But you guys keep reverting the work, making an excuse for fangush. If it's fangush, then why don't you take the facts from fangush and make a better sentence which is more subtle and appropriate. I don't think it's fangush. But everything on the page is true, so just take the references and use them to write better and long. References don't lie, that's why I've put reputed source. I already cut down on the Filmfare No.1 fact but even on Diane, Eva Longoria, JLO's page, there is a mention of rankings. And so many other articles. There's nothing wrong with it. You don't need to rank everyone. Just the top three or just the no.1 It's a great accomplishment. It's not just one source, you know. Every magazine puts her as No.1 for box-office power. I don't think that's fangush. If it were only one magazine, maybe favoritsm but when every top magazine of India, states the same, there is no fangush there. Anyway, do whatever. I just don't want Rani's page to be boring and brief like other Bollywood-related articles. If we start from here, maybe later on, the format can be used and other Bollywood articles can do the same and become more interesting. People don't even look at an article if it's short. There is no info. People tend to search somewhere else on google. Then what's the point of this article? Why not just delete it? Well, I can only do so much as to add info, you guys are editors who can write good and organize thoughts and convey subtle information. Perhaps, maybe even influence people. The old days are gone. Just because Madhuri's article is brief, doesn't mean Aishwarya's or Sushmita's need to be less than that length. People search the latest stuff. We need to improve our current actors and actresses pages. Then, we can move on to legends. Think about it. We can do such a good job. Only if you cooperate and we must not revert one other's work before discussing the problem. I already put so many references. I think it's fine for now. But we can do 50 by the end of 2007. Just think it through. You just need to read all those articles and put it all together in one article. Just go through the references. Thanks for reading this! -- shez 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Rani on Baabul poster

Hello, guys, I just added the poster for Baabul and noticed that on that poster her name is written Mukherjee. Any indications that she messed around with the spelling again? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 11:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

More likely someone in the poster department messed up, and is having his/her head handed to him/her on a platter right now. Zora 13:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

Shez keeps inserting trivia (appearances at orphanages, state dinners, etc.) as if these were personal life. These are not personal -- they're media appearances. Staged for the cameras and the journalists, to give her the proper image.

What IS interesting is that Rani has managed to keep her personal life so very private. There's nothing to say about her personal life because none of it is public. Even Aamir Khan, who is notorious for keeping journalists at bay, is more open to the public gaze than Rani. If we can find someone to quote on this, now THAT would be worth saying, I think.

I should also note that Rani's public admiration for Adolf Hitler makes more sense now that I'm reading Suketu Mehta's Maximum City, a journalist's account of life in Bombay. Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena leader, thinks Adolf Hitler is a great man. He's extremely powerful in Mumbai, and it makes sense for people to curry favor by adopting his prejudices. Hence the recent flap over a Mumbai restaurant named after Hitler, or Rani's quote. She's aligning herself with a powerful politican/gangster. It makes sense in Mumbai, if not outside it.

So, what are her ties with Bal Thackeray? That's something worth investigating. Zora 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting - there is a restaurant called "Hitler"? In Germany, this would be impossible - there has been a recent case where one of the German courts forbid even anti-Nazi signs which use the Hakenkreuz/"Swastika", because, no matter what context, the Hakenkreuz must be forbidden under all circumstances. I guess people are still a bit nervous. Anyway, never heard about Bal Thackeray or Maximum City. Could you provide additional information on it? Sounds like both topics, Bal and Maximum City would make great articles. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The writer, the book, the politician (Bal Thackeray), and the gang (Shiv Sena) all have WP articles. I haven't finished reading the book yet, but it's a must-read for anyone writing about Bollywood. I'm sorry I didn't read it earlier. The writer was a scriptwriter for Mission Kashmir and had an inside look at the whole filmmaking process, which he describes in great detail. Zora 20:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. Diane Keaton's article has her Personal Life divided into

"Relationships and family": Maybe note of Govinda and alleged affairs (with references, please!) and some of her more or less famous relatives. Maybe something about her education - did she ever go to college?

"Religious affiliation": Well, she's a Hindu, I guess. Anything else beyond that?

"Other activities": How about a short note about her charities.

Toned down

Shez has added a lot of stuff but I toned it down a bit. I removed stuff such as "she was a winner in every case and became the new success story of Yash Raj Films". That comment is biased and implies that Yash Raj has done well all of a sudden because of her, also it is untrue.

People can count her awards so there is no need to say that "she lost some to her own self, winning for Yuva instead. I've changed one of the sentences to "Unfortunately, most of them flopped or were received averagely at the box office" because I checked boxofficeindia.com and saw that most of the movies that followed KKHH did flop so to say averagely received implies something else.

The controversy stuff is irrelavent and gossip, also removed "rivalry" with Preity Zinta. All of that is media created so need to put in. Also reduced link-ups to one line. The polls and magazine list are not needed but I kept the Filmfare list.

If anything is wrong with my editing then please discuss on this page. Does anyone want to share their opinions on this? -- Pa7 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you removed just the right things. I checked Joan Fontaine's and Olivia De Havilland's articles in regard of te Preity Zinta/Rani Mukerji mentions, because I thought JOon and Olivia being famously estranged sisters, there must be some comment on their articles. However, there is just a short sentence (on the other hand, both articles aren't featuered), so I think the whole Rani/Preity thing qualifies as gossip/working relationship (and working relationships is something Rani has with almost every other actor.) Just my two cents. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 19:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with what pa_7 did. It looks awesome. I am ofcourse not a writer. But she did a fabulous job! Just one thing. What I meant by: she was the new success story of the Yash Raj Films was that Yash Raj Films made her popular and in demand. All her biggest hits have been with Yash Raj Film and the campaign put her on the map. Her career was going low-profile before Saathiya. Yash Raj Films have done a lot of films with her. Plus, Yash Raj Films is all about quality over quantity. They produce 3 films per year or so. Rani had MDK, Saathiya, Hum Tum, Veer-Zaara, Bunty Aur Babli with Yash Raj Films and now Tara Rum Pum. That's 6 films when Yash Raj Films have selective work. Plus the campaign distributed Black, Mangal Pandey and KANK. That's 9 films already. It's a big part of her career. We must mention Yash Raj Films. I'll just put them on there. You can word it better and elaborate. Thanks. And what's wrong with the beautiful Indian women list? It's great I think because it's not mostly Bollywood on the top ten. only 2 of them on the top ten. So, it's unbiased. I think we should have that there. Please discuss. User:Shez_15

Mukerji Mukherjee?

Where is the reference that 'Mukerji' is the correct spelling? All forms of Bollywood media reference her surname as 'Mukherjee' and even the article mentions the Mukherjee name. What's the deal? Ekantik 02:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's Mukharji ! Waaz 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an unofficial fan site, and she is referred to as 'Mukherjee' throughout. I'll look into correcting the name of this article. Ekantik 01:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The official spelling in India is Mukherji, which is a bengali name.Prem

Yes but on Wikipedia there has to be a consistent reference to the people that are mentioned in the media. People spell 'Swami Ramdev' and 'Swami Ramdeo' but Wikipedia recognises Swami Ramdev. The Britney in Britney Spears should be "Brittany" for official spellings, but we all know how her name is spelt and should be spelt on Wikipedia. Ekantik 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it two weeks and then this article will be moved to the correct spelling. The good thing about this is that full redirect will happen. Invalidly-spelled links on other pages will automatically be redirected to the new location. All talk and history references will be moved too. Two weeks for users to register their views and give good reasons why the 'Mukherji' spelling should be retained. Ekantik 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If there's disagreement about how a foreign name or word is to be rendered into English, we usually go by google hits, or ghits. Rani Mukerji gets 95,400 ghits, Rani Mukherji gets 89,100 ghits, and Rani Mukherjee gets 692,000. By those standards, we should use Mukherjee. BUT ... as it explains in the article, she has publicly announced that she wishes her name to be rendered into the Roman alphabet as Mukerji. I think that she gets her way when it comes to ads, movie credits, etc. I think we should respect the subject's wishes here. We can set up redirects from the other forms of her name. Since there is no one iron-bound scheme of transliteration, I think that it's reasonable to allow her some choice. Zora 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and as such does not really care for Rani's preferences, only verifiable facts. By the same logic, Tom Cruise's proper name is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV and we should respect that and rename the page accordingly? Of course not. Ditto for Brad Pitt (Bradley Pitt) and Britney Spears (Brittany Spears) - Wikipedia cares about verifiability and common norms, not the preferences of the article's subject. Just imagine if Dharmendra suddenly decided he wanted to be known as Dharmindra? Speaking of which, could you tell me where in Wikipedia policies does it say that we should go by the number of google hits? Ekantik 05:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. If Rani has legally changed her name then this ought to have been published in reputable media. Now we run into another big problem. The information in the article is sourced to musicindiaonline.com which is an online magazine and not a reputable source for WP:BLP. We need to find it published in reputable media for the information to stand. WP:BLP is a whole other ball game when it comes to Wikipedia articles. Ekantik 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've spent some time on the Community Portal policy page, and other editors have consistently used the ghit metric when discussing which variant of a word to use in articles or titles. I don't know where to FIND the policy, but I'm sure it exists. There's even a cut-off point; a variant has to have at least 2/3 of the ghits before it can be considered THE variant to use. There have been many many arguments over such matters and ghits is the usual way to solve them.

I should point out that actors/actresses and other media figures have a lot more leverage in determining how their name appears than other folks do. They can insist that their preferred form appear in credits, advertising, press releases, etc. That's usually the form that WP uses too, since that is how they're known in the press. If Rani had insisted that she was Rani Mukerji at the start of her career, we wouldn't be having this argument right now. It was changing the transliteration in the MIDDLE of her career that has posed the problem. Um, what did we do with the article on The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (TAFKAP)? Aha, during the years that he insisted on being known as <FAIR USE REMOVED>, the article refers to him as <FAIR USE REMOVED>. I think that this solution is relevant to the current argument. Zora 06:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these things out. By the way this is not an argument as I believe we are just editors acting in good faith. Good point about Prince, I was just about to bring him up myself. The difference is that Prince's change of name could be verified by reputable sources. Are there any reputable sources that verify Rani's change of name? Musicindiaonline is not a reputable source and violates WP:BLP. Other pages in Wikipedia are controversial because of these considerations, Sathya Sai Baba for example. What is necessary for this to stand is to find a reputable source/media that informs about Rani's (apparently legal) change of name. Ekantik 06:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable roles, wanted to be a housewife, etc.

Shez, lists and polls are trivial. They will be completely forgotten in a month. They don't rate mention here! Please don't keep putting in that business about how she wanted to be a housewife. I looked at the interview that you used as a reference and she doesn't say that anywhere in the interview. She just says that she had a traditional home life growing up.

Please don't keep adding "notable roles." That's personal opinion -- it simply means, "films of hers that I like." Suppose I like different movies? How would we adjudicate which films are notable and which aren't? Cite critics or box office results -- in body of article, not in infobox.

Incident re lathi charge was covered in too much detail. It will also be forgotten in a month. Zora 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because she has won awards for those roles, we could say they are notable roles? Ekantik 00:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

When we give the lists of awards, we note for which film the award was received. So anyone who is interested in award-winning films can find the information; we don't need to give it twice. I should also add that winning a Filmfare award is no guarantee of quality -- as everyone knows. It's a popularity contest, skewing towards box-office successes, not a considered judgment on which films will be worth watching 20 years from now. True of the Oscars, as well. Harrumph! :) Zora 02:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reputable media for WP:BLP?

I'm realizing that one of the biggest problems for actor/actress articles on Wikipedia is that details of their lives and careers are often printed in tabloids and online magazines. This conflicts with WP:BLP and WP:RS because these sources are unreputable. Then it brings up a question of what counts as reputable? I would suggest factual newspaper articles (of course) and not gossip columns. Filmi magazines like Stardust, Cineblitz etc could be used but have to be taken with a pinch of salt, taking care to see if the information is factual or a muttering in the gossip section which filmi magazines are famous for. If this article is well written then it will bring pride to Wikipedia and could even be cited as a source by the media. Why not aim high and be factually correct about everything? Because the film industry is difficult to document and report by nature, we have to think very carefully about what information is available on the pages of an official encyclopaedia entry. Ekantik 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there's very little published information OTHER than the filmi magazines. I personally have found Rediff generally reliable, but not always. It's a general news site, not just a filmi site. There are a few books about Bollywood, but they don't go into the detail we'd need for articles. Maximum City is fascinating, but covers only a few films and actors. See the references in the Bollywood article. There is darn little on the Indian cinemas other than Bollywood.

Start a serious online Indian cinema magazine and we can quote from it. Just don't go overboard in accepting articles from academics who follow the French post-modern school of obfuscation (see Sokal affair for why not). Or get a column in Ego magazine. Zora 07:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's what I'm saying, using reputable sources for people in Bollywood is a minefield because almost all the filmi magazine sources are gossip columns, speculations and general tabloid journalism. So its an excercise in common sense when figuring out what to use. Yes, Rediff is more reliable as an online source. Ekantik 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have removed her link-ups because gossips about living persons cannot be mentioned when they have denied it. It would amount to personal attack. Her being the highest paid is disputed so put "one of the highest paid". Info on film performance primarly belongs in the film page so shortened sentence to "done very well at the box office". Also there is no need for all the polls so I kept just the one. I was going to delete media appearances but I know some users may be angry with this. Any opinions on this section is please comment. -- Pa7 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think media appearances is necessary. This is a section that could grow endlessly, but it doesn't seem to me to be useful info. I have a feeling that Shez wants it there only so that he has a pigeonhole for every factoid about Rani that he can winkle from the net, and as a form of concealed boasting about famous people she's met and charities she supports. On the other hand -- I'm not sure that I have the stomach for yet one more fight with Shez. Zora 17:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hate that section because like you said the list would be endless. Bollywood and Hollywood stars make endless appearances and we can't really cover all of them. Also that info is journo material and belongs in a magazine not an encyclopedia. I will talk to Shez and get him to state his opinions. The primary reason I didn't remove that section was because of him and I had a feeling he would be upset by it. Nevertheless I will try and get more opinions on this section and the article as a whole. -- Pa7 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for deleting media appearances; there are so many of them, really, and most of them are for promotion anyway. However, if there'd be a "No-War"-strike concerning the Irak war and Mukerji would be walking in the first row or something, I think that be mentionable (because generally, Bollywood stars don't do stuff that could intentionally harm their reputation, like that dam-protest-issue Aamir Khan did). Opinions? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you guys jealous of Mukerji?

Don't you have other articles to guard? It's always about why is she getting this section whereas other actors don't have this section. And then later on, you put the same sections on other actors. To cite a few examples, like the filmography chart, notable roles, television appearances, polls... If you like my ideas, why don't you just say that can I put this on Zinta's page too? Or if you like any other actor? Anyway, I don't think we should delete the media appearances section because it depicts on what important charities have she done and what the president has said about her. It also ties knot to Pakistan and India's relationship. Again, we won't be adding and adding stuff to it. If that's the case, we will shorten sentences, but I don't think we'll add more. Coz she has met Will Smith, Prince Charles among many others. It's futile to list personalities rather a good cause like the recent one with the Duke who's investing in Indian films and Rani was a part of it which is nice to read. And plz if you don't like a section, say it then, rather when I've worked on it for a month and then you come up with an idea to end it. It's not fun for me. I would've had 50 references by now but you've kept deleting them. So stop talking about deleting stuff rather improve the page by adding more info. Again, the trivia is a different section and accomplishments is different. Whatever we've put in trivia is more like career-related stuff which we don't put in the career section because it would destroy its continuity and be more like bragging, that's why accomplishments, just like on JLo's page. Trivia, as I've observed is more like trivial things, not polls or highest-paid, it's more to do with she has not done this. She has this eye color. She is known for this. Her favorite thing is this. That's trivia. It's more like for fans who want to know more about her personal preferences. Again, we could delete the trivia section but it wud be unfair, since every actor has it on wikipedia. Trivia is something which goes on and on but we'll put quality trivia and reduce garbage. I've started with something so you can discuss on it as well. Lastly, you can't say that by charging 4 crore rupees, she has now become one of the highest paid as she was already one of the highest paid even with 2.5 crore. I've put the highest paid only because I heard it on the news channel HEADLINE NEWS. They mentionned it. That's why I looked on the net but I only found it on imdb. I'm sure as time moves on, we will find a better reference since Indian magazines anually list highest paid people. Hrithik Roshan has become the highest paid recently. Unless you can prove his figures worth nothing compared to another actor, you can say he's not the highest paid. So unless. If you can prove that Ash is charging 5 crore per movie, then you can say that she is the highest paid, until then Rani is. Come on. How can Ash charge 5 more than Rani. Her last hit was in 2002. DEVDAS. She has had only four big hits with a career-span of 40 films. This was a top discussion on Headline News where they stated that Ash is India's most over-rated actress. You could look that up on youtube.com. She was there too in the interview and she admits, she's only surviving because of her fans. I'll link the interview after this. Watch it! For now, bye. -- User:shez_15 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link: [8] It's the second part of the interview and I think they talk about it at the fourth minute. So wait and watch. Again, there were many other interviews which were detailed but not everything on tv comes on the net. So just listen to this.

I don't know how you got the idea that everybody is jealous of Rani Mukerji. I mean please, we do have lives. Also if you bothered to look above then I started the discussion about the media appearances section and even sent messages for opinions. So to say that if you don't like a section, say it then, rather when I've worked on it for a month and then you come up with an idea to end it is totally irrelavant. We have not removed that section out of respect for you. So please, in the future do read the talk page rather then assuming. -- Pa7 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "jealous"? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a repository for gossip and rumors. Information has to be factual and based on reliable and reputable sources, and especially following WP:BLP. Feel free to open your own website about Rani and report whatever you want there. Ekantik 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

References will be removed

Any references that do not comply with WP:RS or are otherwise unreliable will be removed. This includes references from Apunkachoice.com and Tripod sites. Ekantik 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

1. I edited the Awards sections so that the most recent awards were at the top. This was reverted back so that the earlier awards are now at the top. Which is the correct format as preferred by Wikipedia and common sense?
2. Does trivia information need to be sourced? I was under the impression that they are just miscellaneous factoids?

Ekantik 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we usually have the earliest awards on top. I'm not sure; I don't mess with those sections much. Fans usually watch the awards ceremonies like hawks and add the awards as they're won!

As for the trivia -- of course it needs to be sourced! It evolved as a catch-all category for all the odd stuff that fans insisted on adding, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to sit down and add "Rani's favorite food is artichoke, liver, and chocolate casserole" without being challenged for some PROOF. Zora 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (ewwwww)

Media appearances

I had a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and I feel it highlights some points that go with this debated section. I feel that the media appearances section should be deleted because magazines and newspapers cover these appearances. I don't think they should be in an encyclopedia. I don't see how the relationship with Pakistan and India has anything to do with Rani. All she did was attend a dinner. Also a new anon is following suit and adding this section in the Kareena Kapoor article. By next week they'll be in all the articles. Please any opinions? 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the section, except that I think the information is interesting enough to keep and can be moved to trivia. Ekantik 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The information provided is interesting and should be kept. If others add, we can condense their sentences. shez_15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.210.183 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Actually I'm changing my view. They are all un-notable pieces of information except for the state dinner, that can be moved to trivia because it is notable. Ekantik ^talk 02:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Rani Mukerji → Rani Mukherjee — Subject is referred to as Rani Mukherjee in all reputable sources including article content. Page title was changed with no good reason given. Subject of page move was discussed on Talkpage with no controversial response. This is an uncontroversial move for reasons given. Administrator help is required because NewName page contains superficial edit history and talk page. ekantiK ^talk 05:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support - for reasons given above, if I am allowed to vote! There is no reason for the Rani Mukherjee article to be named Rani Mukerji as she is noted everywhere in reputable sources as Rani Mukherjee. It is Wikipedia policy to choose an appropriate name for subject articles based on how they are popularly known. ekantiK ^talk 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I guess... The phrase The actress changed the English transliteration of her surname from Mukherjee to Mukerji several years ago should be first accounted for, though. If it's true, no move. If not, move. Google Fight is 88 000 Mukerji <-> 670 000 Mukherjee. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 07:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• This is an uncontroversial page move that has been registered at WP:RM for the sole reason of administrator assistance in moving the page, due to an unwarranted and irresponsible move that has left an edit history at the proposed new location. Please support this move so that Rani Mukherjee can have a properly-named article about her on Wikipedia. ekantiK ^talk 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Just a clarification regarding the information about Mukherjee's change of name in the trivia section, this is taken from unreliable sources and this has not been reported in reputable sources and media. If Mukherjee had legally changed her name we could expect this fact to be reported all over the media and reputable sources. However her last few films continue to refer to her as Mukherjee. ekantiK ^talk 04:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• IMDB give both and two others. Anyway, the page history on the redirect has gone --Henrygb 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ah yes, but there's no denying that Rani Mukherjee is the correct and proper name. ;-) Regarding the edit history on the Rani Mukherjee page, you really shouldn't have put up another redirect, as the edit history was probably deleted by Administrators to facilitate the page move. I'll look into addressing this topic on the relevant noticeboard. ekantiK ^talk 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  You wanted to move the article at Rani Mukerji to Rani Mukherjee but could not because of the edit history at Rani Mukherjee. So I fixed that [9] and put a note at Talk:Rani Mukerji [10]. The single redirect I put in would have allowed you to do the move. If you had simply done "Move this page" you could have done the move you wanted. Instead you started editing Rani Mukherjee making it impossible to do the move without further intervention; if you want my help again, you could try adapting your tone. --Henrygb 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Hello Henry, I was not aware of taking a tone and I apologise if you took my comments as uncivil. As far as I have read WP:MOVE, the proposed NewName page needs to be completely blank or even non-existent (inapplicable in this case) for a move to take place, free of edit history, redirects, everything. This is why administrator help was required because the edit history needed to be deleted but the redirect, although they can be removed easily, is problematic as that will prevent a page move. I hope that explained the matter, perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong. ekantiK ^talk 15:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Try reading WP:MOVE#Moving_over_a_redirect --Henrygb 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

Recent edits

There was too much personal opinion in the article so I removed some things. There is still some fancruft but I removed as much as I can but it still needs a major re-write. I really don't know how to do this without offending anyone. Im worried about this article because there is a anon on the Kareena Kapoor article who is adding media appearances and is basically writing the article like this article. I liked what Zora did on the Kapoor article, it looks really good. If anybody has any opinions on my edit then please say -- Pa7 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that your edits are generally very good. Just one spelling mistake. Congratulations! :) On another note it looks like more facts from unreliable sources have been added in so there may be another cleanup coming soon. Right now I'm going to replace all references to Mukerji with Mukherjee in accordance with the terms of the pagemove request. ekantiK ^talk 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Cripes! Who's been doing all that un-wikifying and adding unreliable sources?? There's a lot more crap in it, you turn your back for five minutes and find the article has been transformed! ekantiK ^talk 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Template Films of Rani Mukerji

Hello, Ekantik, about that template - it has been included earlier, but it was agreed upon that only directors get templates. Discussion for it took place here. Just imagine we had to make a template for all of Amitabh Bachchan's or Sridevi's movies. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, no problems. :-) ekantiK ^talk 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)