Talk:Kangana Ranaut/Archive 1

bhambla is a VILLAGE and not town
wiki GO AND check BHAMBLA is a VILLAGE and she is BORN and brought up in that VILLAGE.. the people of that village are proud of her.... WIKI GO and CHECK her PARENTS and grandparents still lives there.. she has never studied in dehradun WHY YOU ARE PROVIDING WRONG INFORMATION??????????? go AND CHECK SHE HAS studied in HILL VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL... i have met her teachers there... hersister is married NOT TO A DELHI BUSINESSMAN BUTto a HIMACHALI boy. there marriage took place in that village BHAMBLA only.. Her all relatives family members are living in himachal only. SHE has rots in himachal only NOTHING IN JAIPUR.. GO AND CHECK OUT AND THEN WRITE DOWN.. WHY YOU ARE WRITING FALSE CONTENT.... Even she has admitted many times on many shows that she is from VILLAGE and she DOES NOT KNOW ENGLISH.. Then why you people are lying??????????? you have also written wrong AGE PLEASE CHECK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweata (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 June 2012
CHANGE HER DATE OF BIRTH FROM 1987 TO 1986 ≤REF≥ HER PASSPORT CHANGE SMALL TOWN BHAMBLA TO ""VILLAGE BHAMBLA"" ≤REF≥ BHAMBLA IS VILLAGE SEE " VILLAGES IN MANDI DISTRICT " AND NO RELATION TO JAIPUR ROYAL FAMILY ≤REF≥ CHECK THEIR" ANCESTORY AND HERS " AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS ARE LIVING IN VILLAGE IN HIMACHAL CHANGESCHOOLING FROM DEHRADUN TO HILL VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL IN VILLAGE BHAMBLA ≤REF≥ HER SCHOOL CERTIFICATE AND HER NAME IN THAT SCHOOL AND SHE HAS NEVER STUDIED IN DEHRADU NO SCHOOL CERTIFICATES ≤OTHER SOURCES ≥ HER INTERVIEW IN WHICH SHE CONFESSED THAT SHE IS FROM VILLAGE AND HAS EVEN LEARNT ENGLISH IN MUMMBAI AND NEVER STUDIED IN CONVENT ≤OTHER SOURCE≥ VARIOUS REGIONAL NEWSPAPERS OF HIMACHAL AND HER ONLY HOME IN VILLAGE BHAMBLA WHERE HER PARENTS AND RELATIVES ARE LIVING ≤OTHER SOURCE≥ MARRIAGE OF HER SISTER WHICH TOOK PLACE IN VILLAGE BHAMBLA HER BROTHER IN LAW IS ALSO HIMACHALI ≤OTHER SOURCE≥ G AND CHECK OUT VILLAGE BHAMBLA IS NEAR ABOUT 40 KM FROM DISTRICT MANDI AND IS A REMOTE VIILAGE AND 150 KM FROM MANALI AND VISIT HILL VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL IN BHAMBLA HER NAME IS REGISTERED THERE AND YOU CAN VISIT HER FAMILY MEMBERS AND RELATIVES WHO ARE LIVING IN NEARBY VILLAGES AND CAN ASK ROYAL FAMILY OF JAIPUR AS THEY HAVE NO RELATION WITH THESE HIMACHALI RAJPUTS YOU CAN CHECK OUT HER ANCESTORY AND VISIT HER VILLAGE

Shweata (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Mdann52 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

== reliable sources for change of small town bhambla to VILLAGE bhambla AND schooling from dehradun to HILL VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL BHAMBLA AND my sources of information and MOST IMPORTANT ALL ARE RELIABLE SOURCES ==

refrences1)on the couch with koel≤show that come on headlines where kangna herself admitted that she is from small village bhambla in a valley and her parents still live there and anurag did not spot her in a cafe ..        2)the reference you have made"Glamour girls from Himachal Pradesh". The Tribune. Retrieved 2008-05-08 has written clearly that she is from a small village bhambla in sarkaghat sub division and 45 km from mandiand also that her family lives inBhambla village 3)^ Ram Kishore Parcha. "Kangana Ranaut interview". BBCHindi.com. Retrieved 2009-04-02.in this article kangna has clearly said that she is from small village bhambla and studied there upto tenth and then for first time went to shimla and then for very first timeout of state to chandigarhand her ancestory ishimachali 4)^ a b "tribuneindia.com". Another actress from Himachal Pradesh. Retrieved 16 February 2007.has clearly stated kangna is from village bhambla and she is born and brought up in bhambla village and her family lives in that village. I HOPE NOW NOW YOU WILL MAKE THE REQUIRED CHANGES AND IN MY EARLIER EDIT REQUESTS I HAVE PROVIDED THE RIGHT AND RELIABLE SOURCES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweata (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

== reliable sources for change of small town bhambla to VILLAGE bhambla AND schooling from dehradun to HILL VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL BHAMBLA AND my sources of information and MOST IMPORTANT ALL ARE RELIABLE SOURCES ==

refrences1)on the couch with koel≤show that come on headlines where kangna herself admitted that she is from small village bhambla in a valley and her parents still live there and anurag did not spot her in a cafe ..        2)the reference you have made"Glamour girls from Himachal Pradesh". The Tribune. Retrieved 2008-05-08 has written clearly that she is from a small village bhambla in sarkaghat sub division and 45 km from mandiand also that her family lives inBhambla village 3)^ Ram Kishore Parcha. "Kangana Ranaut interview". BBCHindi.com. Retrieved 2009-04-02.in this article kangna has clearly said that she is from small village bhambla and studied there upto tenth and then for first time went to shimla and then for very first timeout of state to chandigarhand her ancestory ishimachali 4)^ a b "tribuneindia.com". Another actress from Himachal Pradesh. Retrieved 16 February 2007.has clearly stated kangna is from village bhambla and she is born and brought up in bhambla village and her family lives in that village. I HOPE NOW NOW YOU WILL MAKE THE REQUIRED CHANGES AND IN MY EARLIER EDIT REQUESTS I HAVE PROVIDED THE RIGHT AND RELIABLE SOURCES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweata (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2012
reliable sources for change of small town bhambla to VILLAGE bhambla AND schooling from dehradun to HILL VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL BHAMBLA AND my sources of information and MOST IMPORTANT ALL ARE RELIABLE SOURCES

refrences1)on the couch with koel≤show that come on headlines where kangna herself admitted that she is from small village bhambla in a valley and her parents still live there and anurag did not spot her in a cafe .. 2)the reference you have made"Glamour girls from Himachal Pradesh". The Tribune. Retrieved 2008-05-08 has written clearly that she is from a small village bhambla in sarkaghat sub division and 45 km from mandiand also that her family lives inBhambla village 3)^ Ram Kishore Parcha. "Kangana Ranaut interview". BBCHindi.com. Retrieved 2009-04-02.in this article kangna has clearly said that she is from small village bhambla and studied there upto tenth and then for first time went to shimla and then for very first timeout of state to chandigarhand her ancestory ishimachali 4)^ a b "tribuneindia.com". Another actress from Himachal Pradesh. Retrieved 16 FebrUARY has clearly stated that she is born and brought up in village bhambla

117.205.115.215 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of references
Statements like Her performance in the film earned her rave reviews need to be supported by reliable and verifiable sources, else this article will become promotional in tone. Need help here -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2013
date of birth on 20.03.1987

59.160.130.163 (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The source says March 23 and that March 20th is not her birthday.  RudolfRed (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2014
I request to remove her dob as per sources. The following indicate, she is fabricating her dob. Her passport shows she was born on 1981 not 1987. Remove it until we reach a consensus. --->>> Goandseepaul (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as both of the sources you had cited are viral sites - so have been removed - Arjayay (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Age issues
Kindly do not listen to he speculation over Kangna's age..... She is March 23-1987 she is just 22..... http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_kangna-ranaut-cannot-wait-to-turn-25_1665712

how come her passport says her date of birth is in 1981 and why does she have to fake it ....i mean come on 6 fake years wont going to make her any younger....people should admit their real age no matter how old they are..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofdandi4 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hai every one don't believe in the speculations over Kangna's age..... Many sites carry her name with mis information.... Please visit www.realkangnaranaut.com for your doubts about Kangna..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.114.235 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kangana has indeed hidden her actual age that is six years more, as reported by ndtv.com, a reliable news site. The news is titled Fool's paradise: When Bollywood stars tried to fool fans [see URL: http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/fool-s-paradise-when-bollywood-stars-tried-to-fool-fans-502933?pfrom=home-movies]. So her age in 2014 is 33 and not 27 as this webpage shows.
 * Unless we have one of these reliable sources explicitly state, and not speculate, that she is lying about her age, we can't include it in the article. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  15:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

BH
Please add BH external link in this template, see Info...
 * It's already present. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  01:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2014
Please add the movie review link of Revolver Rani from a reliable source

Upcoming projects
Ranaut has several upcoming projects in various stages of development. She has completed work on two films that are scheduled for a 2014 release—the black comedy Revolver Rani with Vir Das, and the Karan Johar-produced drama Ungli alongside Emraan Hashmi, Sanjay Dutt and Randeep Hooda.


 * Already done. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  06:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

About changing Kangana's picture on her wikipedia page
Please can I have permission or can someone else change the picture on Kangana's page, the picture isnt that good and has a watermark from a website, it does not look neat, take for example the neat photo of Deepika Padukone on her wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micruise (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Seems to have been accomplished. TNKS. She is featured on the homepage of Wikipedia today. --  AstroU (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

About her Playing Male character
Its true that Kangana Ranaut acted as male in a play.

In June 2003, Girish Karnad 's classic play Rakt-Kalyan Taledanda was going to stage at India Habitat Centre.She was playing Lalitamba's character in it.Before the show one of the main character fell ill ,but Kangana came out and prepared Damodar Bhatt's role within an hour.Damodar Bhatt's role is very challenging but that day Kangana 's performance in both Male & female characters was outstanding.

pls read cinema critic Ram Kishore Parcha's BBC interview with Kangana Ranaut http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/entertainment/story/2009/03/090309_kangna_interview_ad.shtml (59.177.11.151 (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.11.151 (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CAN SOME ONE ADD HER CONTROVERSY WITH PARIS HILTON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.243.182 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, not done: At this point, what difference does it matter? --  AstroU (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Paris hilton controversy
can some one put her controversy with Paris hilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.243.182 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, not done: At this point, what difference does it matter? --  AstroU (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected, two days
If the edit war continues after protection expires editors will be blocked. --Neil N  talk to me 13:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to worry about me. I did a terrible job trying to expand this article. Let the experienced editors do all the things from now on. I am out of here. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 13:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, you're aware this isn't the first time you violated the 3RR, right? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 19:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015
Katti Batti Film 2015 in filmography

Pravinagalave (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ it is already listed in Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards we will wait until it is released and see if it a notable film in her career before adding it to the "Selected filmography" - Arjayay (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Kangna and Hrithik case
I think it is important to discuss the matter that is currently ongoing between two actors, that has gained significant media attention, plus actress's alleged accusations to actor for releasing their private emails that results in FIR against Hrithik and subsequent release of prominent evidences of self-made allegations. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has already been mentioned in the article. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 14:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2016
Please fix these three dead links. Thanks,

2A02:8108:30BF:B168:9D25:2267:1056:DAF3 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 02:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Age
30? I thought she was 29. FrB.TG (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone too thought the same, until... Kailash29792 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead
is adamant on changing the lead from it's approved FA version to a poorly written and grammatically incorrect version. Attempts at reverts have resulted in gross personal attacks. I hate dealing with such people. Can someone else help me with this? Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is one thing you can do Krimuk. Just ARV him. Kailash29792 (talk)  06:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversies to be mentioned separately
Since she makes a lot of honest and opinionated views which always land her in troubles, lawsuits, fights with other co stars, dominance in film creative desicions, taking credits, abandoning projects and several other controversies etc. We should have a column titled Controversies on her page just as we do for Salman khan's wikipedia page. These shouldnt be mixed inside Acting career info. DarpSinghh (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:Controversy sections. -- Kailash29792   (talk)  07:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017
change "born 23 March 1986" in first line to "born 23 March 1984" .. I am her classmate and old friend and know her correct d.o.b. Ria1985 (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "I know it to be true" is not a reliable source. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Fg Ravisingh4106 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

edit request
Simran is released now so change the last paragraph of career Pranesh Gavali (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018
About her relationship with Aditya Pancholi - she has spoken about it several times, most notably in Aap Ki Adaalat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3wHgadR3Y8), where she described how he manipulated and tormented her. She has also spoken about it on Barkha Dutt's show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncajg8Tki3M) as well as at public forums (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jyfzPaCwdo). Jeerabasmati (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018
Want to make changes to grammar and formatting and add basic facts like working with Rajkummar Rao for the second time in Anurag Basu's Imli (which has been spelt wrong in the article, by the way). Jeerabasmati (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Religon
please follow the link. She is not a hindu. She follows many religion https://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/a-hrithik-roshan-fan-spreads-hatred-for-kangana-ranaut-through-old-beef-eating-statement-her-team-gives-a-befitting-reply/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.162.209 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a lie Hrithik Roshan has nothing to do with whatever religion she chooses to practice, nor do his fans say she is a Hindu on the contrary she does not behave like one. The issue is her own statement saying she eats meat, then at a later time claiming she is a vegetarian. The only one that puts the matter in dispute is kangana herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CriticusExpertus (talk • contribs) 02:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong date of birth
There are at least 3 birthdates reported for Kangna as her name first appears the year 1981 is the year that fits better with all her history of school and how she started modeling after leaving school, Then her passport list the year 1986 and later she herself claims 1987 PLEASE NOTE that falsification of documents is easy in particular changing a number 1 to a 6 or a 7. Take note and state there is a discrepancy.CriticusExpertus (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , any source for the 1981 DOB? Here is her passport which says 1986. How can it be wrong? Kailash29792 (talk)  09:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Kailash29782 You state her passport shows 1986 yet she goes around saying she was born in 1987. So who is correct you? her passport? her statements? the facts? and she does have a record of lying or misrepresenting reality when it benefits her. Therefore my request to list the date of birth as one of those facts that is a discrepancy in her bio. Just like she is registered twice on voter records as kangna and kangana. Why is it important? Why should anyone care if she is 5 years older or even 1 year older, than she claims? Simple: She has claimed that she was abused/raped by a man while she was a minor. It is a widely known fact that she was having a relationship with the man, a very public and confirmed relationship. Going on the premise that a minor cannot consent to a sexual relationship, it would make it statutory rape at the very least, however if she is in fact 5 years older or even 1 year older, that changes her rape claim to a mutually consensual relationship of adults.CriticusExpertus (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Female led films
In the main content it should be noted that she has changed the potryal of actress in the industry by starring in leading films with no big male stars and making the film's successful Pranesh Gavali (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Kangana has neither been the first to star in a female centric or female lead only film not in India and for sure not worldwide, nor has she set a precedent for such, many other females have done films as sole leads and she is simply a follower, just because she uses it as point to credit herself does not make it fact, most notably in the last two decades Rani Mukerji, Shridevi, Vidya Balan, Shabana Azmi Priyanka Chopra among others have done female centric films. kangana has in fact benefited by path braking females both in acting opportunity and in films made and led by females. CriticusExpertus (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019
Please change the sentence that states Manikarnika did farely well at the box office, the truth is that it was a loss, underperforming both within India and at the global market. CriticusExpertus (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sceptre (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I would ask you the same, PROVIDE support information that shows or proves in a definitive manner that the film was profitable, there is a discrepancy on the budget, with kangana herself stating that the original budget was 120 crores, then she states after the directing fiasco with the original director that she had to re-shoot 75% of the film, a re-shoot means more funds, because I am sure it was not shot for free, the footfalls and the collection tracking sites listed the worldwide collections at under 100 crores, not counting the digital/music recovery, the math is very clear, the exhibitor venues did NOT make profit.CriticusExpertus (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Please correct her age: she is 1986 born
Multiple reputed news outlets have published a photo of her passport and mentioned her DOB as 23 March 1986. I cannot understand why Wikipedia editors refuse to correct this. In light of recent scandals involving Wiki editors, I am prepared to believe the worst.

https://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-kangana-ranaut-s-hiding-her-real-age-and-we-have-proof-2365264

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/220516/kangana-ranaut-is-not-as-young-as-she-claims.html

https://news.abplive.com/entertainment/movies/shocking-kangana-ranauts-passport-copy-reveals-her-real-age-check-out-809190

https://daily.bhaskar.com/news/ENT-BOW-kangana-ranauts-age-revealed-5331246-PHO.html

https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/bollywood-kangana-ranaut-highly-paid-actress-rangoon-11-crore-truth-330999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlook2020 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Many edits being reverted by Krimuk2.0
These include branding KR's views as controversial without citations. Krimuk2.0 states that there are plenty of citations in the main text. But none of these controversies are listed so on the pages of other celebrities who have similar views. Vizziee (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)vizziee
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and MOS:LEADCITE. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not citing specific reasons. You are citing tags that are not proper causes of why you reverted almost every edit of other users.Vizziee (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)vizziee
 * Krimuk2.0 reverts edits of almost all users. This user cites one tag as a reason to revert multiple edits not related to the tag.Vizziee (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is really thin on information
I have to agree with DarpSinghh that this article is a little void of her politics and the response she's getting to tweets, like having her home office demolished. I don't think it needs to be a controversy section, necessarily, but there definitely needs to be a section on calling out the Mumbai police and the response to that.--Literaturegirl (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of footnotes
In this edit I removed embedded footnotes that seem entirely unrelated to the content that precedes them. We have a statement about her decision to not go to medical school followed by an irrelevant footnote about how she had to take bad jobs to afford health care for her sister. Then there's a statement about the subject being known for her viewpoints, with a footnote about family portraits being shared on social media. Am I missing something? How are these footnotes relevant? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended Protection needed
Hello, I want to request that kangana page requires more protection as page is continously vandlaised or unneccsary details added which arent relevant here if possible add extended protection so that only extended confirm user can edit the page. Aristocratic 536 (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The place to request page protection is at WP:RFPP, but it seems premature. You should open a discussion about the content and discuss with the other editor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Update might be called for
I have not been one of this page's contributors, nor do I have time or interest to be one at this point, but I've seen her name splash across news headlines off late, including her political affiliation, her involvement and views about the film industry (which she labels "Bollywood mafia"), reactions to her views by media and colleagues. I didn't get into any of it and honestly it does not really interest me, though I did notice a recent column on Indian Express, very critical of Ranaut, which is clearly one-sided, but taken with other pieces could help update her recent activity. Not sure there's any need for it to begin with, but just saying, in case those responsible for this article are interested. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , That column is an opinion, don't know why it should be included to a WP:BLP page BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The content on this page is clearly one-sided. Kangana is easily one of the most controversial figures in Bollywood but the page doesn't reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsurugi78 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:BhaskaraPattelar - please read my message again, I didn't say it necessarily had to be included. It's just an example of the amount of notice she's getting and off late she's really been in the news. Also note that critics' reviews are similarly opinions. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should make some mention of it as she has been in the news a lot lately like in the court case I mentioned in the section below.Mitsurugi78 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Court Case
I had added a section regarding a court ordered investigation against Kangana. 

Why can't this section be included?Mitsurugi78 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

As per BLP "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

There are multiple sources for the the court order:  Mitsurugi78 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it might be relevant, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let's see how it plays out. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Further, we should be considering the long-term academic value of the content being added, not just hopping on the sensationalism train. Apparently in India, anyone can file a complaint about anything and this system is often misused. "You have offended our religious sentiments by wearing a hat with a feather in it! We have filed a complaint!" This particular event seems to have more to do with Ranaut's sister than with Ranaut herself, at least as presented before it was deleted, since the big "controversy" according to what was added, was that Ranaut defended her sister. Since this content was most recently removed by here, they should be invited to comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Clean up required
The article requires clean up, especially the Career section. It seems to have been written with a PR point of view. It contains to many unnecessary details and reviews of her performances in films which can be moved to the film’s respective articles. I will like to do the editing. I need the suggestions of the active editors of this article on what should stay and what can be removed, so as to avoid any edit wars. Your suggestions are welcomed here. defcon5 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Everybody is free to edit at any time, but since you have brought up quite a bold concern ("seems to have been written with a PR point of view"), why wouldn't you give examples of instances which gave you that impression here? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

New addition
Okay, this new addition:
 * In November 2020, Ranaut faced backlash over comments she made about an elderly woman who was photographed while protesting during the 2020 Indian farmers' protests. Ranaut tweeted an accusation that the woman was actually Bilkis Bano, an 82-year-old woman who was featured in Time 100 2020 for protesting during the Shaheen Bagh protests. She further alleged that Bilkis was a paid protestor, who was "available [for] 100 rupees." This was later proven false, when multiple news stations fact-checked Ranaut's statements and spoke to Bilkis herself, who revealed that while she supports the farmers, she was not at the protests when the photograph was taken. Ranaut later deleted the tweet, but criticized those who fact-checked her.

I find it the most casual piece of info about Kangana - many such things have been ciculated off late, and there's nothing about them which justifies mention on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is a biographical article, and this addition is classic case of WP:UNDUE. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Media image
Information saying Ranaut is a sex symbol and fashion icon was removed, and I've restored it. To be more precise - I've changed the sentence from "considered as" to "Ranaut has been cited as a sex symbol and style icon in India". Added a source from a scholarly article and another from Filmfare magazine. The first source, as opposed to what the removing editor mentioned in their edit summary, opens just fine to the original text of the article, which supports the claim. Any which way, the information is an absolutely acceptable review of her public image, and I can't see how it's "outrageous", and certainly do not accept the assertion of the removing editor, who said that "no refs can satisfy" its inclusion. Sorry, they can - that's what verifiability is all about. Moreover, this part was there during its FAC - the article was promoted with this line in it, so its removal will have to be discussed at the very least. I don't know much about this actress, but I'm willing to keep its standard though I think it needs a thorough update. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was more of a WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV consideration. She has done a few bold roles in her initial years which make to call her a 'sex symbol' in the industry by a few media. It was rather a negative term at that time. Being a sex symbol in actual sense is a larger term; who is well-known for their sexual attractiveness and not just doing a few sex scenes, for example; Marilyn Monroe. The claim needs wider support and should be cited by multiple significant sources which surely a lack here. In a diversified country like India, where a majority of people don't even recognize her and to call her a sex symbol of the country is actually outrageous and a case of WP:WEIGHT. The best we can go with is 'Ranaut has been cited as a sex symbol and style icon in Bollywood' (though I am not convinced). - The9Man  ( Talk ) 07:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bollywood is not a place. So by whom is she supposed to be regarded as a sex symbol according to your proposed version?
 * Secondly, significant sources are there, I've added a 20-page article by a scholar from a book available online. While searching I've seen many more, so I'm sure sources are not the problem here.
 * Very honestly, I'm not very sure about her being a sex symbol, so I'm somewhat with you on that one (although I need to read a little more because it's not about your or my opinion); I do gather her fashion sense has been imitated, but I don't know enough, and it really doesn't interest me that much. I trust Krimuk and the community of FAC reviewers who have reviewed and supported this version, but I'm willing to get more into her media image by reading a little more, but I need time. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021
As per Kangana's Passport her date of birth is 23rd March 1986. Please fix her age.

Source : image.scoopwhoop.com/w620/s4.scoopwhoop.com/anj2/5e620f2f2f1b745e07becab1/4af2f6c5-fddd-4fba-83ad-4bb455f07665.jpg.webp Samratbhattacharjee (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. We can't cite images because we can't verify their authenticity. Please provide a WP:RS instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 02:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the controversy surrounding her comments made about the ongoing Farmers' Protests
I initially wrote this section under the controversies heading in the article.

"In November 2020, Ranaut faced backlash over comments she made about an elderly woman who was photographed while protesting during the 2020 Indian farmers' protests. Ranaut tweeted an accusation that the woman was actually Bilkis Bano, an 82-year-old woman who was featured in Time 100 2020 for protesting during the Shaheen Bagh protests. She further alleged that Bilkis was a paid protestor, who was "available [for] 100 rupees." This was later proven false, when multiple news stations fact-checked Ranaut's statements and spoke to Bilkis herself, who revealed that while she supports the farmers, she was not at the protests when the photograph was taken. Ranaut later deleted the tweet, but criticized those who fact-checked her."

This is absolutely not casual information. Her comments have now been covered by reputable news stations, such as NDTV, and have been in the news cycle for multiple days. I will be adding this section back to the article, and backing it with multiple sources in addition to the ones previously cited.

CalicoMo (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper - it is an encyclopedia. Ranaut has been in the news for numerous controversies she was involved in, and it's got nothing to do with her biographical article. Over the past year, she has been in the news for so many things that I can recall: her quarrel with Urmila Matondkar (whom she called a pornstar) and Sonam Kapoor, and Jaya Bachchan publicly accused her of defaming the film industry, all her conspiracies. None of it is substantial to this page - see WP:UNDUE, not everything that gets wide coverage deserves mention here. Now it's under the personal life section; I can't see how it's even remotely close to being part of her personal life. you might have a point of view here.  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with not everything that gets wide coverage deserves mention here, that's why rest of them are not there. She is into so many controversies doesn't mean that this should be considered as just another. This particular incident went farther than the rest with wider coverage and many celebrities getting involved. This is also directly connected to a notable event 2020 Indian farmers' protest. I have moved the section from Career to Personal life, where it seems more appropriate as per the article structure. Introducing the Controversies section might be a better idea though. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 10:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What you're saying here is quite baseless - what makes you say that it "went farther than the rest"? Is there any tool of measure for it? Her mere tiff with Urmila Matondkar was actually given more publicity. A google search for "Kangana Ranaut" "Urmila Matondkar" - gives "About 1,870,000 results (0.37 seconds)", and the one for "Kangana Ranaut" "Bilkis Bano" gives "About 329,000 results (0.36 seconds)". Secondly, "wider coverage and many celebrities getting involved" - this is true for everything Ranaut has been involved in - she has been attacked and criticised for many of her comments, and I'm all for expanding her article and public image in this light, but certainly not load this article with journalistic nonsense.
 * But this is not the issue - the question is its relevance in a biographical article, specifically in the personal life section. How is it part of her personal life? This is an encyclopedia, and this piece of info isclearly against WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You would search "kangana ranaut" "diljit dosanjh" and came up with 1,15,00,000 results (0.36 seconds) if you understand this controversy rightly. If you think it doesn't belong under Personal life, suggest where it belongs, I did as per the article structure as a previous controversy is under this section. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 11:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Exactly, and it's still not relevant on this page. It is relevant in newspapers, forums, TV news shows, but not a biographical article. So I think it doesn't belong anywhere in the article, neither career nor personal life. Even her story with Hrithik Roshan has been given very limited coverage here despite its tremendous coverage in the Indian media. I have no doubt this so-called controversy will sink without a trace quite soon like all the Kangana feuds and controversies which have not made it to the article because someone was actually aware of what a WP:BLP should include and didn't let it through. Sadly, off late many such additions have been made on different articles, and they take away from the quality of this and other entries. Just imagine Angelina Jolie's article flooded with all her many controversies or comments, many of which I'm sure have been more widely publicised. This is clearly not what Wikipedia is all about. I'm giving it a few days, let's see how it all fares. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would seem that if she is known for making provocative statements or otherwise being controversial, and we are pointing that out as we do in the lede, some evidence of this behaviour should be present somewhere in the article. I don't have an opinion about whether this specific incident is the one to include or not. Some other editors have complained elsewhere on this page about the lack of coverage about her controversies. I have deleted some of these contributions because they were very poorly written and didn't provide any of the Five Ws details you'd expect to see, or the attention to NPOV that we'd hope to see. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I was one of those who complained about a required update. But this is just not it. Random controversial tweets and ensuing weekly controversies are definitely not what a BLP calls for, especially not in Ranaut's case since she doesn't filter her expressions. There should be a nice paragraph summarising her different statements tied to her public persona, and then some opinions about them by published columnists, without getting into what other celebrities have had to say, which is rather trivial.  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I may be confusing this actor with another. Anyhow, as I said, I don't have an opinion about whether this specific incident should be included, but article subjects are not immune from criticism and if she is known for being controversial, some examples should be present. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We're in agreement here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have removed this as it is a run of the mill controversy. Wikipedia is not a grapevine. Given this is a BLP, we need consensus to add this. Kangana Ranaut has been involved in numerous run of the mill controversies where each one dies out with the news cycle. Instead, of mentioning individual incidents (where we will struggle with giving due weight), it is better to provide a summary in a section like "Public image". For example the lead states Known to be outspoken in the press, the opinions she has voiced, along with frequent reports of her personal and professional relationships, have frequently sparked controversy., which I think is a good summary. We can expand with to 3-4 lines in the public image section and use references such as which provide a summary, instead of focusing on individual incidents. Pinging User:Shshshsh and User:Cyphoidbomb.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The lede is supposed to summarise content found elsewhere in the article. If we are acknowledging that the subject is often embroiled in controversial comments or situations or whatever, then it is not unreasonable for there to be examples listed of these incidents. Merely regurgitating secondary sources that say "she is controversial" isn't enough, because, like for most things, context is important. For example Donald Trump, being a divisive individual in global politics has numerous examples of controversial content indicated in his article. And while not every divisive statement he has made is included in the article, there are some key instances. So if we are trying to build an encyclopedia that presents a neutral point of view, which might include good and bad evaluations of Ranaut, what examples of controversial content are you willing to include here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead actually summarises pretty much what is already there in the article - her relationships with Pancholi and Roshan (which ended in court - that is a notable controversy), her public fallout with Karan Johar, her voice against nepotism - it's all there just in the right proportions. I for one am strongly opposed to passing controversies in a BLP, particularly about a film actress. Film stars often get embroiled in meaningless controversies, and the removed examples are definitely inconsequential. Her acting should be given topmost importance, and everything else should be subsumed under her personal or public life, that too in a succint manner. Being an encyclopedia entry, the article should include information which is so notable that even ten years from now its inclusion will be relevant. Respectfully, the Trump article is not a very fitting example here, because he is a politician, head of the world's biggest power, so his controversies have much more weight in direct relation to his position, and they get much wider coverage. Moreover, his article is not a FA, and I'm pretty sure its talk page is the centre of ongoing clashes between his supporters and opponents. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Columns

 * Huffpost.
 * Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ranaut has never said that she identifies with "right wing" ideologies or critical of liberal values. May I know how did you added these things to her article? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  17:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Did you actually read the sources? She said exactly that, although we can alternatively change it to "is identified as holding X views". Look, I don't know much about her, I'm implementing what has been requested before using reliable sources. Just a while ago she posted on Twitter a photo of herself, calling herself "a right-wing role model" (source from Daily News and Analysis). Your firm assertion "Ranaut has never said" is a little strange, I have to say. I suggest that you first check before saying because just one search online will yield tons of articles exactly on her political and national stand, in her own words as well as others'. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Twitter
The mention of her Twitter ban is in my opinion essential information in the body text but definitely not significant enough to merit a mention in the lead. First, let's not make Twitter more than it is - it is a social platform. People here seem to forget, but this is an encylopedia, an encyclopedic entry where the lead is a general summary of her life and career. She is not a public person, and this is not a major even in her life. Above all, this article is an FA, such additions must meet consensus and cannot be re-added without discussion. Don't make this article into a film magazine. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021
Please include in the section "See also" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangana_Ranaut_filmography 2405:201:D007:5C:556E:C1D8:6250:AD6 (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Updated the redirect in filmography section — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims
Known for versatility in cinema and portrayal of strong women in female centric films That seems to be an extraordinary claim. Please add multiple high quality sources (in the body describing as such) or remove the claim. Also she has been described in the media as one of India's highest-paid actresses - a quick scan thru the article has some content that supports the statement, but a review might be necessary. — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Best Female Debut
At Filmare, was won just for Gangster, not Woh Lamhe. This is a mistake in the TOI source. The award ceremony video is available online. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  09:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes
Please discuss what to do with the lead here, Nenetarun. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022
i want to add the padma shri award photo of kangana ranaut please Ritgvs (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 09:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes
I'd say I don't completely disagree with 's changes in terms of ordering of the media section, but as said, consensus is all that matters here. I see that Seabirdie is not happy with the following: Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mention of Ranaut's political views in the lead. I can't see why you think mentioning her political stance is meant with prejudice on our part. To me it says nothing, both because I'm very non-political and because I believe in everyone's full right to expression and freedom of speech (for the record, I don't follow her much so I don't know what exactly she says, everything that's written is based on what sources give without going into the details of her statements). Anyway, we don't present it as anything negative; we let the viewers decide what her opinions mean to them. The comparison to other actresses: I don't know that other actresses are as vocal as Ranaut is on her positions. Anyway, I'm not sure it's mandatory in the lead so I'm willing to go with consensus here.
 * The order of the media section. I actually liked and disliked the order change. I do think more importance should be given first to her career, but then I see you left parts of the public in the first paragraph, making the entire thing all over the place, so how does it go?


 * I have checked your edits on kangana's page. Anyway, YOU DON'T CONTROL pages dear. Since I have found bias, I'm starting to edit. We can do this everyday. Thank you. Seabirdie (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia functions. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO. You don't get to decide what's biased and what's not. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * like I said, we can do this everyday. See you tomorrow. Seabirdie (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Seabirdie: Please avoid this rhetoric and read WP:EDITWAR. Please discuss the changes you want to make and if you do, you might even convince Krimuk that it's best done your way. Wikipedia works per agreement and consensus, not personal desire - edit wars will take neither you nor this page anywhere. By the way, I did start a discussion above, please cooperate and offer your input. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Female-led
Sounds good but a little banal. What do we mean by it? I haven't seen a lot of Kangana's movies, but do we mean she is the single lead right? Because basically every film (or most of them) has a female lead, and we're talking about women-centered films where the leading lady is the main protagonist, something like a star vehicle, isn't it? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No, star vehicle wouldn't do because it's strictly commercial and based on stardom. I understand we're talking here about films where the woman is the single lead, like Manikarnika, Panga, Queen and the likes. So I think either women-centred is a good option but let's keep female-lead for now. Another point about her being one of the best-dressed and so on. I think there's no sense to write that she was considered one before, unless we can show that she stopped being regarded for it and now it's reversed and she is considered among the worst-dressed. That's why "has been" could help us because we do not specify a particular time in the past and do not necessarily say she still is or that alternatively it's over. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Female-led" is an accepted term for films that are driven by the female protagonist. See this BBC source. I'm in agreement with the best-dressed part. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0: Thank you for clarifying this, my friend. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This lead is so overhyped? her films aren't unconventional and we've see female actors doing Dhaakad (action), Thalaivii (political drama), Panga (sports drama), Judgemental Hai Kya (Psychological drama), Manikarnika (period drama) kinda films several times in past.. There are more but these are her 5 last films. Known for her work in female lead films was a much suitable lead. Also almost all her films are very much commercial and promoted on a big scale, ain't no way these are unconventional or something new. See the work of actresses like Smita Patil or Shabana Azmi or Tabu/Konkona Sen Sharma from recent era, These ladies craved parallel cinema with actual unconventional films and work. @User:Shshshsh Vellaonwiki (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We're not talking films but roles; actually not even roles but characters. I haven't seen any of the films you've mentioned, I'm basing myself singularly on the sources I've read. And right, her films might not be unconventional, but according to critics the women she's played are. That's what most sources say - I've seen the word "unusual" numerous times, and later in the article this statement receives firm support in the text. I'm not really willing to list her roles/films like you did, because that would just be my POV and our opinion matters less than what sources say, but if I had to, I must say I could understand why some of her characters have been deemed unusual. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh huh? If that's the case then literally every character in a female lead film is "unconventional" and there are multiple sources and critics who even noted Alia Bhatt and Deepika Padukone for example for portraying unconventional characters, just Google them with "unconventional roles" and see how many sources pops up. I've seen the main article and i can't find any major reliable source for "strong-willed" and "unconventional" characters and also I've watched almost all her films. She has only one unconventional character which she portrayed in film Queen. Unconventional basically means different and new and there's nothing new about portraying an spy (Dhaakad), politician (Thalaivii), sports person (Panga), schizophrenic (Judgemental Hai Kya), warrior queen (Manikarnika) and before that she did romantic drama like Rangoon, comedy films like Tanu Weds Manu Returns and Simran. Now you tell me how these are unconventional? and strong-willed too coz literally every female character rn is strong-willed barely anyone plays subservient characters lol. I would love if you show me multiple reliable and notable publications and critics backing up your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellaonwiki (talk • contribs) 03:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Everything you said is your personal opinion, sorry. Wikipedia follows sources, not users' opinions. And I'm not in a forum discussion to be convincing you of something. I think the sources mean, as I said, not the roles, and not in relation to the film industry, but the type of women she's played, who are often eccentric and unusual. I'm sure an actress who's been awarded four National Film Awards did do some original work, but I don't know enough, and it doesn't matter. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh then show me the sources. Tell me the name of publications and critics (4 or 5 atleast) calling her roles unconventional and strong-willed and if wikipedia works on "sources" then lets do this for other actresses as well because i can show you multiple sources as well for them. This lead is overhyped and its a wikipedia page not hagiography. Also, this has nothing to do with National Film Award lol and if it is lets do this with all multiple National Film Awards winners. But first i need to see the sources, list the name of publications and critics, I'll check myself Vellaonwiki (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead is overhyped? What does it even mean? I can't think of a more balanced lead. Most sources actually cite her as one of the best actresses in the country, and we chose not to include it here. Anupama Chopra, a leading film critic, says Ranaut is "arguably the finest actress working in Hindi cinema today". I was the first to request on this talk page and later bring in criticism of her off-screen expressions. The lead as it stands includes lines such as "criticised for being typecast in neurotic roles" and "a decline in stardom", so I don't know what you're talking about. As for the NFA, I don't care about them but I can't see what's funny either; it happens to be the most coveted award in the country among actors, then why would you even use that rhetoric?
 * But to answer your question, and without digging too deep in archives but just the first results: right there on the article, the BBC is cited: "She's an outstanding performer. She's a natural actress who's played strong, unusual women in a number of films and carved a special niche for herself."; Moreover, Rediff (2016): "Whether it be playing strong, unconventional characters on screen or surviving personal setbacks..."; Namrata Joshi says: "It has not just been about being the quintessential outsider in the incestuous, closed world of the Hindi film industry but also about exercising unconventional choices when it comes to the films and roles and then going ahead and turning this double drawback to her own advantage. Here is an A grade heroine who unlike Deepika, Katrina, Priyanka or Kareena doesn’t boast a Khan prop-up on her roster of films."; India Today: "She is unlike any of her contemporaries. She doesn't like running around trees and dancing to songs in chiffon sarees. She has a knack for interesting scripts and meaty roles. Meet one of Bollywood's most versatile actors of recent times, Kangana Ranaut... Known to play unconventional roles on silver screen". Times of India: "known for breaking stereotypes by doing diverse roles".


 * I'm sure the list is long - I also see scholarly articles with similar words. I think you should leave your personal position behind and let Wikipedia build upon what reliable sources say. That's how it works. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh It is indeed overhyped because there are numerous critics who said the same thing about numerous actors so does that mean we'll write a lead like this for everyone? and among the critics or reviews you mentioned, only Namrata Joshi's article seems kinda notable because she's a notable critic but again Rediff ain't an notable publication. Talking about Anupama Chopra one, i clearly remember its just one of the sentences in her Rangoon review and finest doesn't mean unconventional or strong willed and its already mentioned in Public Image section. Times of India and India Today has multiple articles about women breaking stereotypes featuring multiple women, lets add same claims in their wikipedia pages to be fair and talking about "sutaible lead" i've said this in past as well when versatility and highest paid and all were removed from her lead that the most sutaible lead will be "known for portraying strong women centric roles" because this is the exact citation or discription on her Padma Shri certificate, here is the source - and you can check it on their website as well. She got the highest civilian honour, Padma Shri for that so i guess she's actually "known" for that. Lets keep it short and valid. using adjectives like "unconventional" and all is just overhyping period. Vellaonwiki (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That you choose to conclude your argument with "period" doesn't make it more valid. I disagree with you. You asked for sources, I cited them, and now your argument is that other actresses get the same recognition? Well, that other actresses are credited for their work doesn't belong in this discussion but on their pages, as we should focus on every article separately and follow WP:DUE. Moreover, if something is mentioned in another section, it doesn't mean it should be excluded from the lead. Quite the contrary - the lead is a summary of what appears in the body text. We have an actress who's repeatedly recognised as one of the finest actresses in the country and yet we only give a very basic introduction describing the characters she's played. That's the opposite of overhyping. And yes, it's funny you want to rely on her Padma Shri following your "lol" reaction to her four National Film Awards - this is no mean thing - knowing the industry, actors are thrilled to get even one of those in their entire careers, so I wouldn't belittle their significance for such a young actress. We could well write, "Recognised as one of the finest actresses in India" and it would be perfectly valid but we choose a more balanced lead where the positive commentary is toned down. But you see such discussions are based on consensus. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And as I said, the quoted I've provided are just a handful among many other:
 * Indian Express: "A versatile actress, Kangana Ranaut is known for playing out of the box characters."
 * The Quint: "Kangana Ranaut is known for playing out-of-the-box characters in her films"
 * I see in the article's history that before that it said "Known for her versatility and portrayal of strong women in female-centric films". I see no difference. We could change "unconventional" with "distinctive".
 * Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh These are your sources? then lets get to the wikipedia page of any other actress, I'll show you the same type of sources you are showing like things from certain reviews and all and lets see if you add such claims for them as well or not lol. And what mentioned in other section should not be mentioned in lead? Anupama Chopra called her "one of the finest", unconventional word she never mentioned and even adding "one of the finest" in lead just because of one sentence in a film review won't be valid.. multiple notable sources are needed for such claims. Also, do you know the difference between National Awards and a Padma Shri "lol"? NFA's are awarded for a specific performance and role and mind you they also have citations on their certificate and none of her NFA winning performances were noted as unconventional by National Awards themselves and Padma Shri is more like an life time achievement award given for entire contribution of an artist, if they are clearly mentioning what she's "KNOWN" for then how's that not a more valid and more notable source than your sources which are random select sentences from film reviews and generic articles which many other actresses have them about them as well. Vellaonwiki (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, it appears that you haven't read my previous message. I'll repeat so you mark it - that other actresses are credited for their work doesn't belong in this discussion but on their pages, as we should focus on every article separately and follow WP:DUE. Go ahead and discuss them there. Also, your point about generic articles doesn't work - we follow reliable sources, all of which say she is known for something. Indeed, from the sources I've observed, Ranaut is acknowledged as one of the finest actresses, and there are plenty of sources to show it (just as you said, "multiple notable sources are needed for such claims", I assure you there are many). I'm not a fan of Ranaut, but saying that her achievements as an actor could easily parallel those of her contemporaries is really ignoring reality. As for NFA, they far outrank the Padma Shri for actors (in my humble opinion and without being disparaging to the PS) because everyone gets the Padma Shri at some point (your argument isn't it?) while NFA is given exactly for what you said, specific performances and distictive achiecements in acting. She's received four of them for five performances (I've seen only one or two of them, frankly speaking, so I can't comment on how well-deserved they are).
 * Anyway, I can't follow your argument - you seem to find a pretext for every point. First you're saying multiple sources are required, then, when they are provided, you're saying others get similar recognition, or alternatively, that they are "generic". Come on, please provide a more cohesive rationale, otherwise it will sound just as something you don't like. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh these are your sources? The Quint which is not even a publication at first place, it is an general news and "opinion" website.. Using opinion websites as source for such big claims isn't valid at all especially when you only said "wikipedia doesn't work on opinions" and i also checked your Indian Express source that source again is mainly about of Ranaut's look in film named Katti Batti, its literally a promotional article written by their staff and not a notable critic like Shubhra Gupta who is the most prolific critic of The Indian Express. Your sources clearly are baseless.. Like you should start reading your "source" articles instead of picking select statements and sentences from them.. and now after checking the sources which clearly aren't notable i don't need your assurance. i need a full list of actual notable sources talking about her "artistry" because your cliams like strong willed and unconventional are related to her artistry and not her looks in films (The Indian Express source) and opinion websites (The Quint source). My Padma Shri (which btw not everyone gets at some point, get your facts right! and for your convenience lets assume everyone does then also each of their Padma Shri certificate will have different citations, they aren't going to give generic reasons to honour someone for sure) source is clearly much more notable and reliable than your sources from opinion websites and promotional articles lol. Also, talking about wikipedia pages of other actors, we'll meet there as well.. I'll tag you only if someone reverts my edits but for now lets talk about about Ranaut only. Also, i thought we aren't taking opinions seriously in this conversation right? so yeh i don't need humble opinions which are wrong btw, PS is definitely more prestigious than NFA's even in actors case because NFA's are awarded annually to multiple actors, actor can win multiple NFA's as well but PS is something which an actor can win once in his/her lifetime. They can only upgrade it to Padma Bhushan or Padma Vibhushan but again that takes years and most of them aren't honored. I kinda think you don't know how Padma Awards works like imagine saying everyone gets it at one point when there are so many senior actors than Kangana who still aren't awarded and i don't understand what NFA's has to do with doing unconventional or strong willed roles? NFA jury never said that and her NFA citations doesn't have that either. You clearly made an opinion just because she won 4 NFA's and then then you preach about how opinions doesn't work on wikipedia but sources does. If you're claiming she's known for unconventional roles because of her NFA's then show me sources from NFA's and its jury and not your opinions. Vellaonwiki (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had my say, and I can't follow your arguments. This isn't a forum and not a place for POV - neither about actors nor about perfectly legitimate sources. The Quint is very much a reliable source; Padma Shri, by the way, can't qualify as a source, four NFAs show that she's among the most appreciated actresses in the country, and no one is using them as a source for anything. They should speak for themselves. The lead as it stands is supported by sources, both on the article and here. Please read WP:V, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:RS, WP:CON, and WP:DUE. Thank you. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh See how you're now running away from the conversation because i actually showed facts and how your sources are unreliable lol. Calling Quint which is described as an opinion website a reliable source when you only claimed wikipedia doesn't work on opinions just doesn't make any sense and you also couldn't list more sources. Also, talking about forum or place about POV when your claim is literally your POV, i mean you couldn't even list proper sources that says it all, i debunked all your sources from opinion websites and promotional articles and you don't have a comeback! Also, saying her NFA's shows she's appreciated or unconventional is plain dumb and again its your POV, NFA jury never said that and according to your logic we should add claims like "Shabana Azmi is the best actress in India" because she's actress with most NFA's or "Satyajit Ray is the best Indian artist" because he has most NFA's for an individual.. Please make sense, show sources about her actual artistry, like my Padma Shri source clearly mentions what she's known for unlike your sources which are either your POV or unreliable sources and sorry you can't say you had your say because you didn't proved your points and couldn't deny my points either, I'll just use my version then because as per talks you just decided to stop having an point to point conversation and said you had your say. btw if you are so clear then why don't you show me actual sources, sources should talk about her artistry in general. This has nothing to do with article or my points but i would also love if you explain me how Padma Shri ain't a reliable source, when its an honour given by India's government but The Quint which is described as an opinion website is, if Government of India ain't reliable then NFA's can't be used to make such claims either because they are also Government sponsored awards. Vellaonwiki (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and avoid this rude rhetoric. And please do read again what I've written. Again, neither Padma nor NFA are sources. Shabana Azmi is indeed one of the most acclaimed and appreciated actresses in India, and not only because of her awards, but because that's how she is regarded by critics in the press. Any reliable source that would prove such a claim is based on opinion, so your argument that an opinion website couldn't qualify here is quite peculiar. Opinion pieces is exactly what we need to prove such points. I was happy to cooperate with your message, multiple sources have been provided above and they're all reliable. Mind you, reliability is determined upon Wikipedia policy, namely WP:RS, and not your personal judgement. Having gone over sources, some of which are cited on the article, Ranaut is acknowledged for her versatility, acting prowess and yes, distinctive characters. And yes, she is also criticised for her big mouth too, which is there too. I'm willing to change "unconventional" to "distinctive", but other than that, I've nothing else to contribute here. I'll be happy to hear the opinion of Krimuk, the main contributor of this article. Until then, you can't make changes unless you reach consensus. Thank you. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh First of all i am not even rude and just having a proper conversation with points and yes talking about Shabana Azmi you should actually see her wikipedia page for reference and see how well sourced her lead is, the sources are actually talking about her artistry unlike sources for Kangana and you keep saying multiple source when you showed me just three sources and those sources are from opinion websites, promotional articles and select sentences from film reviews and none of these sources are talking about her artistry, if you find a source like Shabana Azmi has in her lead for Ranaut then only you can make such big claims. For now she's known for doing female lead films only and not for being unconventional or anything and if she is again I'm asking show me sources, add them in main body of article because i can't see any source on the main page claiming she's known for doing unconventional roles, we all will see what kinda multiple sources you're talking about. Vellaonwiki (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliment - I happen to be the main contributor of the Shabana Azmi article and her lead (although I have a lot more work to do on it). The lead there is sourced because the body text isn't. The Kangana page is much better sourced, by the way. The lead summarises the article very well. Sources from the BBC and others are provided exactly for the claims given in the lead; and more sources, which are perfectly reliable per WP:RS, appear in this section above. Again, opinion websites are exactly what we're looking for and, as I said, you don't get to dismiss sources in accordance with your personal judgement. And your claim about promotional articles is unsubstantiated. We follow policy. Waiting for Krimuk to step in when he has time. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh trust me i can read as well and yes Kangana's page is much better sourced, all her points about her political views and public image is well sourced but this lead simply isn't like Shabana Azmi's lead and again show me where one the main page she's noted as someone who's known for doing unconventional roles with multiple sources.. see because I've not spend more than a decade editing wikipedia pages so you have to be a little more helpful and tell me where exactly are the sources on the main page and where exactly those sources claims "known for doing unconventional strong willed roles". I'll read them carefully like i did with your sources you showed me here and will be back with a counter if they're same like your previous sources. and since you're apparently the main contributor of Shabana Azmi's wikipedia page then lets keep her lead source as the benchmark and show me similar sources for Kangana, thank you! Vellaonwiki (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * See the third paragraph of the Public image section. Another comment by Namrata Joshi added. The paragraph provides a short overview of the reception to her acting and film roles, and the lack of conventions is supported by BBC, Joshi, and Uniyal. Based on this section, the lead could easily give her even greater positive commentary. At the moment it's even quite minimalistic. My message above with sources by The Indian Express and The Quint for "out of the box" are very good, with proper bylines of authors, exactly for the claim the lead makes, but they're not needed on the page, as it's sourced well enough. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Shshshsh I've said these in my previous texts (or whatever you call them) that only Namrata Joshi's article is valid since the article is more about artistry but again based on one critic you can't make such big claims and she only said Ranaut makes unconventional "choices" and that doesn't actually mean she's "known" for that so yehbit is a better source but not perfect enough to make such claims and now talking about BBC article, the critic called her natural and said she created her own niche, that doesn't mean she's unconventional or strong -willed but yeh Ranaut doesn't have an artistry section yet it can feature in that now again coming back to the point, it doesn't justify the lead and btw in the same article there's an comment of a much more notable critic Anna M. M. Vetticad, she says "Ranaut was once known for her craft" so basically she's saying now she just isn't known for her work or craft. And no the Indian express lead ain't notable like its literally a article talking about Kangana's look in Katti Batti and The Quint again a opinion based website and yes opinions of websites may matter but only if someone notable is writing, Stutee Ghosh is the most notable critic at The Quint she didnt wrote that someone from staff did and pretty sure staffs opinions aren't valid and there's a reason why the article is basically a "news outlet" about Kangana's look and not artistry. More and better sources are needed like Namrata Joshi's, atleast 3 or 4 I'll say for such big praise adjectives like unconventional and strong willed. Vellaonwiki (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Everything you said about sources is your own POV. WP follows policy, namely WP:RS, not your (or my) personal judgement of sources. Every source I've cited above is reliable and legit, period. As for the BBC - "a natural actress who's played strong, unusual women", unusual = unconventional. As for Vetticad, she specified that Ranaut was known for her craft only and then became known for her controversial statements, which is also mentioned in another part of the section. That's it, I've given it enough of my time. Let's see what Krimuk says when he's available. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing ideologies
The current citations to support this contentious label aren't enough. The DNA article is more or less a gossip and should be removed. Can we get more high-quality sources [with bylines from reliable journalists/analysts/scholars]? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What about these sources from BBC, Kangana Ranaut: Twitter suspends Bollywood actress account and Kangana Ranaut: The star on a warpath with Bollywood? Or this one from Scroll? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The BBC Twitter suspension article and the Scroll do not support the ideology. The BBC one talks about how she tackled Bollywood nepotism later becoming a polarising figure and using Twitter, Insta to attack others and post absurd tweets. The Scroll takes us thru the interview and offers comments here and there. I don't see these two talking about her being of right-wing ideology.
 * The second BBC link of warpath with Bollywood has Anna M. M. Vetticad's view of her right-wing agenda. Other than this, it talks of her tackling Bollywood nepotism, attacks on Rhea Chakraborty among others. Vetticad's view is reliable for the ideology statement.
 * I'm still reading thru HuffPo and The Quint pieces. Do you guys have more sources on this topic? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad, when I added it, I was going through many sources and I must have confused it with another one. The BBC article is a very strong source as it provides an in-depth overview of both her talent/high status as a performer and stormy public image. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if we take too many sources we might want to group them, although at this point it looks good as is. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Shiv Sena debacle missing
SS demolished a part of her home-office later she took SS to Bombay HC. The whole saga from why she took upon SS to how it ended at the very end is missing from her personal life(?) section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * BMC demolished the building, not Shiv Sena. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you mean to say SS-controlled BMC, then yes, BMC demolished. It is being attributed to SS [thus implying BMC as a tool as BMC has the legal authority and not the party] — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's notable enough. To me it looks like just a random controversy which has relevance in the press but not in an encyclopedic entry. We give a sufficient overview of her political positions, the rest seems redundant to me. I might be wrong of course, so if you have something particular to offer, like a proposed summary of the incident to be added, please do. I'm sure consensus will determine this way or the other. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)