Talk:Madhuri Dixit

This isn't a fansite
Okay, the article's lead is being edited time and again to turn this page into a fansite of sorts with language that would better suit a film magazine at best. , you've edited the page recently. Maybe you could weigh in on the matter here. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I try to keep it stable, but as is increasingly the case with Indian-film related pages, it's become exhausting! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0: Indeed, it has. This is the latest addition by . Can't think of words I have less tolerance for than "influential". A group of new users are trying to turn Bollywood-related BLPs into no less than a fansite. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree though that Dixit's phenomenal stardom has place in the lead. There should be a way to express it without all this puffery. We could mention her achievements in the 1990s, her being the top-earning star and so on. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there, my friend. Actually it was me who added "Dixit attained nationwide stardom that allowed her to lead star vehicles and singularly challenged her male contemporaries" - I spent time filtering out the puffery added by other users ("influential" and stuff), but after listening to their claims did agree to an extent that the article should reflect Dixit's stardom, which was indeed immense and in many ways never-before-seen. Having read some articles, even scholarly literature, over the past few days, I see that one of the credits she received is the fact that she challenged her male stars in terms of both salary and status, which wasn't quite common before in such a male-dominated industry, and that her stardom allowed her to be a single lead in her films where the male star was secondary to her, also unusual for those days. The article by The Guardian backs it up quite well. I also just learned that she wasn't just "one of" but the highest-paid actress in the country in her prime, culminating in a Guinness entry in 2000. That's what I tried to bring to the fore in the lead. I do believe that instead of writing how greatly popular she is, it is her achievements, which are often cited in the press, that should be reflected in the lead, and that's why I came up with this sentence which is a somewhat factual representation of sources, even if I agree it needs work. I agree that "challenged" could be switched with a better, less bombastic term, like "paralleled". Maybe "Dixit was credited for singularly paralleling her male contemporaries and leading star vehicles in a male-dominated industry". Let me know what you think. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, my bad. I thought it was Rahil again adding fancruft. "Dixit was credited for singularly paralleling her male contemporaries and leading star vehicles in a male-dominated industry." This is much better than the use of "challenged" (which honestly sounds like she’s in a battlefield) and than phrases like "the most successful leading actress", which essentially adds nothing to the article. FrB.TG (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @FrB.TG: Totally agreed. Thank you. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can see other Star's Wikipedia pages and then you may compare and talk! Almost every Bollywood Actor's pages have been exaggerated. Dixit's long successful career is a fact AIL601 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)