Talk:Rani Mukerji/Archive 2

Recent Edits
I disagree with a lot of the recent edits to this page, specifically the hacking of facts from 'Trivia' and calling them 'Accomplishments'. For a start, they can be incorporated into the main body of the article. Shez keeps converting the article to containing blatant POV and these need to be watched and reverted as and when necessary. Also, we need to build consensus on what constitute reliable sources. Every time I perform a cleanup, Shez or someone else keeps on inserting links to unreliable sources such as Tripod sites, AOL members, Musicindiaonline, Apunkachoice, and others. These are all unreliable and should be removed on sight. I might start a topic about unreliable sources on the Project Noticeboard so that we can build consensus that will affect all pages under WP:INCINE. Ekantik talk 02:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Awards
I just deleted the entry for a ridiculous award on the grounds that Rani was nominated for it, she hasn't actually won it yet, See this link. It appears that the so-called Savlon award is not even notable. Reviewing the whole 'Other' awards section made me wonder if this is suitable informaiton to tbe included in an encylopaedic article? The whole page itself looks like a cribbed resume of her achievements past and present, which we can do nothing about at present until we get some high-quality sources to include in the biography and other sections.

What do other editors feel about the 'Other' awards section? Barring the Sports Awards and the Zee awards (of whose notability should also be questioned) is there any use in maintaining this section? Isn't it better to remove this section of non-notable awards? Ekantik talk 01:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove away, as far as I'm concerned. I'll support you. Shez will probably object strongly and revert. Zora 02:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Zora, I'm about to remove it. Shez will just have to put up with it. :-) But seriously, if Shez continues to disrupt this article (adding non-notbale information and unreliable sources, etc) then we may have to seek action against him. It'll be just tough luck. To see an example of what I'm talkinBold textg about, check out the before and after of Ron Jeremy article. Guess who did that? Jimbo! :-) And as per his explanation, this is a good example of how Jimbo/Wikipedia is better off with stub-pages with reliably sourced info rather than pages and pages of cribbed stuff that is poorly sourced. If you're listening, Shez, please take heed. Ekantik talk 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

personal infos
Seems interesting, lots of personal infos about the actress, first film Byar Phool, origins of her name and family, interview on infos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.122.89.227 (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Non-notable BBC Awards
The notations to the BBC Film Cafe Awards have been deleted because the award is non-notable. See the BBC Film Cafe website; Film Cafe is a radio show with its own non-notable awards "ceremony", where the votes for the awards were cast by listeners. This award is non-notable. It's easy to get fooled by the "BBC" tag but some effort must be made to establish the veracity of the information. Ekantik talk 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Page Move
Oh God, please tell me we'r enot going to have a war about a page move. A peek into the archives of this talk page reveals that the page was moved to 'Rani Mukherjee' with administrator help after a vote was taken and community consensus was gained. Please, therefore, do not move this page without good reason. Ekantik talk 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
Just cleaned up a bit, but otherwise the article is OK. Removed that she has been one of the most popular and sought-after Bollywood actresses in the industry circuit because no-one can vouch for that. Unless she won the National Film Award there is no need to mention this. Removed stuff on her saying yes to Aamir and SRK, this ain't really notable. -- Pa7 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes! Also removed her future television appearance with Preity Zinta. It's already in the TV section, so no need to re-mention. -- Pa7 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have removed some very irrelevant bits of trivia like the fact that she was invited to Aamir Khan's wedding and has not played a negative role. That is useless info! Personally I think this article is a mess but if I try to clean it up then certain editors, one in particular, will think that Im chopping the article into pieces. Does anybody want to share their opinion on this article before I go ahead and do some editing?? Also just to get the record straight, nobody is jealous of Rani Mukherjee. -- Pa7 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Job!
I think the page never looked better. Although facts like she was the only celebrity invited to Aamir Khan's wedding and she has not played a negative role are trivial matters, that is maybe why they were in the trivia section, but it's okay if you removed it. You don't need to further edit it. It's complete. Thanks! -- User:shez_15 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "complete" - Wikipedia is an ongoing project. In my opinion this page has become even worse of a mess than when I first saw it. Does anyone really think that a enormous section dedicated to the spurious awards she's won trumps encyclopaedic information of her life and career? This is a cribsheet of awards she's won and not an encyclopaedia? And what to speak of the huge number of unreliable references that are being used, leading to images and not information? Sorry, as soon as I get some real time on my hands this page is going to get a major rewrite. Ekantik talk 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ekantik. The Bollywood bios in general are quite a sight. Unfortunately, I'm strapped for time as well. Anyway, one little bit at a time, I guess... xC | ☎  21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At first I assumed good faith. After your revert war, I see that all you're previous comments indicated something like this would happen at some time.
 * You're comments here show that you don't understand Wikipedia's policies. It also shows you believe you own this page. Might I suggest you read up on this page.
 * Also, there's one little line under every edit box. It reads -
 * Please note-


 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

I would like to request all editors on this page to collaborate in improving this article. Best regards, xC | ☎  05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Years in headings
I'd like to point all editors to Angelina Jolie, a featured article. There they have used years in the headings.

To all editors, I'll be adding them back. Lets not get into an edit war - please discuss on the talk page before removing them again.

xC | ☎  04:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A comment about the headings was placed by on the talk page of . It has been copied here as it was relevant to this discussion -

Plumcouch sorry but the headlines of this user weren`t good at all. The first topic which was titled 1992-1997 can`t be placed under the Career section. Rani didn`t start her career in 92. That`s ridiculous. As per the reference she had only a little cameo which is considered as nothing or nothing that could be in the career section as the beginning of an actor`s career at least. Apart from it. This film does not appear in imdb so we can`t rely on this reference. Imdb is the central source of cinema in all over the world. That`s why this title can`t be posted there. Don`t you agree with me?

And why do we need this protection status. Fore what? we can resolve those problems in a professional way. Anyway.. Please respond me. Thanks. Best Regards --Shshshsh 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This unneccessary copy-pasting of talk page comments could be avoided if all editors discussing this article could add their views and suggestions on this page. Thanking you, xC | ☎  05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If she did a cameo in 1992, then that would be her first role. Again, it is should be repeated IF. Its probably a mistake to assume that anything in this article is well referenced or free from fangush.
 * If you could prove that this film never happened, ie. she played no cameo, then this line should be removed entirely.
 * If you can prove that this film actually happened, then the line should remain in career, since it is more relevant there. Putting details of her films under the section Family background is odd, to say the least.
 * Lastly, the protection status is required due to your, and other editors, lack of communication on this talk page. While you indulge in page-long discussions on editor's talk pages, the actual talk page of the article is left blank. This is disruptive on two counts-
 * 1] New editors trying to understand how the article shaped up can find no support.
 * 2] It means that whatever decisions are taken by the editors working on the article have no record on the article's talk page, ie. the article becomes a matter of private discussion instead of public collaboration.
 * Such editing practises are detrimental to the project. Alongwith your continous reverts, supported by, such disruptive behaviour was the cause of the protection of this page.
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  05:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

early work
Her cameo role in Biyar Phool and details about Aa Gale Lag Jaa are by no stretch details about her family background. Therefore, they were in the wrong paragraph. They have been shifted to the section of her career dealing with her early work. Thanks xC | ☎  06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A relevant post was made by on the talk page of . It has been copied here as it seemed relevant to the discussion.

Honey, Biyar Phool is referenced. Again, it can not be taken as her first movie as it was a cameo when she was 14. Biyar Phool was a small budgeted movie in Bengali directed by Rani's father. It doesn't even classify as a Bollywood movie. But it is simply written down in her early life section to show that her father taught her. -shez_15

This unneccessary copy-pasting of user's comments could be avoided if all discussion pertaining to this article took place on this page. However, due to repeated lack of communication on this page, I am forced to resort to copy-pasting all relevant discussions on this page. Thanking you, xC | ☎  05:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming the reference is true, then it was the first movie she acted in.
 * Whether cameo, or lead role, she acted in the movie.
 * Her age does not decide whether or not the film is her first movie.
 * The film's budget does not decide whether or not it is her first movie.
 * Whether a film is in the bengali language or not, if she acted in it as hre first film, then it is her first film.
 * In the version endorsed by you, it was in the section primarily detailing her family background. It would be more relevant in the career section.
 * Again, all of this is IF. We have to first verify if the movie actually exists, and whether she really acted in it.
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

request
I would like to request all editors to please have a look at the archive - /Archive 1.

Several of the issues brought up with the article are in fact issues that have been brought up in the past. The discussions previously had to be abandoned due to certain disruptive editors, details of which can be found in the archives.

I would also like to point out that this isn't the first time the article has been protected from editing to prevent edit wars, and this time round the war was just as useless as it was the last time.

I'd like to request all editors to post their views/opinions/suggestions to improve the article on this page and not on editors' talk pages, so that all discussions relevant to the article can be found on this page itself.

Thanking you,

Best regards, xC | ☎  06:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so
It doesn't classify as her first movie since it is not even acknowledged by imdb. And if it does, then why are you being so unfair? Hrithik Roshan did a cameo in a movie when he was a child. Why don't you put that as his first movie? Although, Kaho Naa Pyar Hai is considered to be his first movie by many including me. Urmila Matondkar was a child artist and so was Aftab Shivdasani, why don't you put their cameos as their first movie in their career sections? Why are you again Mukerji? And lastly, you can't put she started working on her career since 1992, people didn't even know her, plus she was in school. For example, say I am 14 years old and I do a movie just for a friend as a cameo of five minutes, it doesn't mean I started my career at that age whereas I wasn't even focused, I just did it for the fun of it. It was only for a day's shoot, and then it's school for five more years till I actually get a job and start working on my career. I won't say I really started working when I was 14. A day of work cannot be classified as an occupation. Hence, Rani Mukerji's Raja Ki Aayegi Barat is her first movie where she committed more than a few months for shooting and not just one day of shooting. Please, let's be rational. You can't say she was active in her career since 1992. Hence, the headings in the career section don't make sense with dates. The page looks much better with the previous headings which do make sense. You'll only confuse the reader if you put she started working in 1992. People will surely get misunderstood. Plus, they might not believe in wikipedia facts anymore. - shez_15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The following was posted on Plumcouch's talk page by Shshshsh. It has been copied here so as to help the debate -
 * I don`t intend to remove this movie from the article. Not at all. Just to notice that we could never use this movie as the beginning of her career, cause this source is the only one. Apart from it, Rani always says that her first film was RKAB in 1996. She has never mentioned Biyar Pool. By the way, there is no way to use this film for writing in the Info Box that her years active are 1992-present, because this will be a really false information. Tell me what do you think Please. Best Regards --Shshshsh 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

End of post


 * Replying to Shez 15
 * About the Hrithik Roshan page, lets have a look at the current version of the article shall we?-
 * Career section - Hrithik's first movie role was as a child artist when he was six years old in the 1980 movie Aasha, when he appeared in a dance sequence as an extra.
 * Career section - He made his debut as a leading man in the 2000 film Kaho Naa... Pyaar Hai opposite another debutante actress Amisha Patel.
 * Its written very clearly in the article which roles he did. His role as a child artist was his first and has been acknowledged as such. You are a little confused, it seems.
 * You write - Kaho Naa Pyar Hai is considered to be his first movie by many including me. I would like to point out that what you consider is purely your opinion. The article will state facts, not what you would like to consider.
 * You write - Why are you again Mukerji? I assume you mean against? No-one is against Mukerji/Mukherjee. You're paranoid claims are disruptive and pointless for this talk page.
 * Then you say - And lastly, you can't put she started working on her career since 1992, people didn't even know her, plus she was in school. Lets take this piece by piece, shall we?
 * Assuming she actually did the film, then it was her first role and therefore should be noted as such.
 * People didn't know her - of course they didn't. Neither did the audiences know Hrithik Roshan in his role as a child artist, nor Matondkar nor Shivdasani. Whats your point?
 * plus she was in school - Yes, she was. So? She still did the role, did she not? Aishwarya Rai did several modelling assignments while in college, so should we remove those assigments from her history? Do you want to remove all roles done by people while they were enrolled in an educational institute? What is the reasoning behind this argument of yours?
 * You write - For example, say I am 14 years old and I do a movie just for a friend as a cameo of five minutes... []...It was only for a day's shoot...[]...I won't say I really started working when I was 14. A day of work cannot be classified as an occupation. - And your point is? You still did the role in the movie, theoretically of course? So if you ever went on to make a career in acting, that cameo would be mentioned, provided of course, you were notable to be mentioned.
 * You write - Hence, the headings in the career section don't make sense with dates. Actually having the dates in the headings have a purpose-
 * They clearly demarcate the different portions of her career into identifiable blocks.
 * They mark the timeline in which she did the particular work for that block.
 * Instead of having one massive block detailing career, they seperate it into better organized, neater sub-blocks.
 * You write- The page looks much better with the previous headings which do make sense Are you saying this because you wrote that previous version? And what sense are you talking about, the logic you have used to justify removal of headings is flawed, as I pointed out above.
 * You write- You'll only confuse the reader if you put she started working in 1992. Actually, the reader can easily read the fact that she has only done a cameo and conclude for him/her-self that her actual career did not start then. We are not here to write history the way you want it. We are here to write history the way it happened, and allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions from it.
 * You also write - Plus, they might not believe in wikipedia facts anymore. Despite your melodramatic conclusion to your post, I would like to point out -> If the content is well-written, well-referenced and properly organised and formatted, the article will surely be trusted.
 * Now, apart from this entire discussion about her first movie, we first need refs that she actually did play a cameo part in the movie. If not, then this entire discussion is irrelevant. Whoever added that movie into the article, do you have references?
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  11:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I thing Xcentaur's points are very valid. One of the questions is: do cameo roles done in childhood count as career stages? (I think a cameo should be mentioned, but the career thing is another point. Still, my opinion is: yes, they count as career, if she later works as an actress. Everyone has to start somewhere.)
 * Also, we need a verifiable source to reference that cameo role in PB. If it's questionable if she had a role there *at all*, we should remove it completely.
 * Besides that, awards still need to be cropped down.
 * Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 17:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Biyar Phool
The following was posted on Plumcouch's talk page by Shshshsh, I mean by me. It has been copied here so as to help the debate - this message is very important I really don`t know whether she was in the film or not. As I said, my intent is to remove it from the career section cause it`s very unnecessary in this particular section. it`s not the beginning of her career. It could be just a little note at the most, as Shez_15 intended. Just to note, if this film remains in the career section (which is the most notable section of the main article), there will be a big contradiction between WP and the other net sources, which neither Shez nor me and you, want to happen. I just know for sure, this is the only source which marks that she made a cameo in this film (If the film exists at all). I have also looked for this film on the net and found zero results related to Rani or her father. Yes, Rani hasn`t mentioned this film in any of her interviews or appearances. She always says her first film was RKAB. Like in KWK, she said "Preity came two years after me", which of course means that she made her debut in 1996. Every other actor who started his career as a child actor, has reference on it. whether it is Rekha, Sridevi, Hrithik or even Sonu Nigam. Firstly, I thought, Why Rani, who is younger than them and is one of the most popular actresses today, doesn`t have it? I think if she had done a cameo in this film it nevertheless would have cited, if not in IMDB, so in another reliable source like Indiafm or whatever. So I don`t know. I suggest you to look for it, and then to make your decisive edits. Best Regards --Shshshsh 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC) End of post

Thanks. --Shshshsh 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to whatever I managed to find, also in the film was Prasenjit Chatterjee and some actress called Indrani. But the movie isn't mentioned on his WP article or on IMDB. Now Rediff turned up that she has done Biyar Phool, but not a single, and I mean not a single, result from Google confirms which year the film released, or what age she was when she appeared in it.
 * That she did the film is more or less confirmed. Finding reliable sources that state the same is a little more difficult. xC | ☎  06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
I'm bringing up some of the things in this article that I disagree with. Some of these are old concerns, brought up previously on this talk page by myself or previous editors. Some are newer problems that have cropped up, and need to be looked at -
 * Mukherjee first appeared on celluloid in 1996, and since then has appeared in nearly 40 films. - This would depend on whether she did a cameo in Biyar Phool or not. If she did that cameo, then this should be 1992. If not, then it should be mentioned that it was for RKAB.
 * Sections Family background and Personal life could very well be together, in a single section after Career section.
 * Career-
 * The years should be kept in the headings, for the reaons I listed above.
 * she did a cameo role in her father's Bengali film Biyar Phool.[5] - The ref for this is wrong, the page doesnt mention the movie anywhere. I glanced through the results Google turned up, the first few were - one,two,three(French). Of these, the first could be a reference, the second is a fansite, the third is in French, which editors may or may not understand. I'd like to point out that none of these mention the year she did the film in. A more thorough search would be needed.
 * Mukherjee wasn't at all interested in becoming an actress - perhaps. ref needed.
 * Chori Chori finally released after much rather delay as the producer had passed away during filming. - ref needed
 * Her performance as a Pakistani lawyer in Veer-Zaara was also critically acclaimed and earned her even more award nominations - ref needed
 * In 2005, Mukherjee starred in four high-profile films as she worked with the biggest banners of Bollywood. While Bunty Aur Babli, Black and The Rising were among the biggest grossers of the year[21], Paheli was sent to the Oscars. She received critical acclaim for every film, especially her performance in Black. She also won every single award in the "Best Actress" category for Black that year. Undoubtedly, these successes established Mukherjee as one of the industry's most bankable stars.[22] Hence, the actress was honored by a largely foreign audience of 50,000 at the Casablanca Film Festival (2005) in Morocco where four of her movies were presented.[23] - rework to make it more in line with WP:NPOV
 * Her latest movie in 2007, Ta Ra Rum Pum is all set to release. and the actress has gone for a fringe haircut this time. Mukherjee will be sporting a modern, up-market and slightly sexy look in chic western outfits for the first half of the film.[30] - unnecessary. remove.
 * Personal life - close friends should be removed. unneccessary.
 * Controversies - needs to be expanded, as the section offers no details. The words guarded apology is also POV.
 * Famous commitments
 * Charity causes - could be renamed Humanitarian work and shifted to a seperate section
 * World tours - can be integrated with career, as it would be of more value there
 * Special events - the details about her performing at the commonwealth games should be in career. Where exactly should the details about her trip to Pakistan be? We'd all be grateful for all editors' ideas.
 * 'Awards and Honours needs to be cut down. If it cannot be reduced then I strongly suggest having a sub-page so as not to clutter the main article.
 * Polls - This doesn't need to have a seperate section.
 * Is the rediff's poll notable?
 * Filmfare list could be integrated into career
 * Is 'Eastern eye' notable?
 * On a side note, I'd like to point out that Scarlett Johansson tops (or nearly tops) polls for being 'most desirable' all the time. However there is no page-long list of polls she's been named in on her page. In fact, all thats mentioned is one little line in the lead. Just a thought.
 * Trivia- As per WP:TRIV, this entire section doesn't exist.
 * She has continued working with Yashraj Films every year since 2002. - unneccessary. Remove.
 * Their production houses are ranked at the top in India. - this article is about the actress, not the production houses. Remove.
 * She has worked six times with Shahrukh Khan, five times with Amitabh Bachchan and Salman Khan, and four times with Abhishek Bachchan and Preity Zinta - unneccessary. Non-notable. Could also change in future depending on which films she does with whom. WP is not a counter, we are not supposed to count the number of times she's acted with someone.
 * The spelling change of her name is notable, although it should be in Personal life due to the reasons shes given.
 * Television appearances - section is unneccessary. The content should be integrated elsewhere, if possible, and the section removed. Stars turn up on TV all the time.
 * KBC appearances should be on the KBC page.
 * The rest are the usual interviews and don't need to be noted specifically in the article.

I'd liketo request all editors to post their views/opinions/suggestions about the same here and not on editor talk pages. It would be beneficial to keep discussions pertaining to an article all one talk page. After all, that is why we have article talk pages :)

Best regards, xC | ☎  06:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok
Ok Xc! I think I understand your point of view now. And I totally agree with you. It's just I'm tired of finding references and putting them on there. Why don't you search for references for the areas you cited. That would be great. Again, I think that family background should be named 'early life' where you can integrate Biyar Phool if the movie does exist. It's a Bengali film and really unheard of by me. There are no means for me to know if the movie exists in my video store. If you think it does exist, then I think it should be put in early life whereas you can show that she belonged to a filmi background and attended her father's shoots. Ofcourse, she learnt a few things observing shoots all day long. It's silly to date career from 1992-1998. Because there would be a gap of four years till you get to 1996. Thus, if the movie does exist, you can easily put it in 'early life'. Then, if dating the career section deems alright by all, then we can date it. No problem. I just have a problem dating it from 1992-1998. Because Rani herself says she entered the industry in 1996. In her Filmfare Magazine Interview in 2006. She quoted: I've slogged for ten long years. Therefore, she doesn't even consider Biyar Phool as her movie for all the right reasons. I do feel that early life and personal life should be two separate sections. Because one is early and the other one is after stardom. It contrasts the difference. The rest is all fine. I agree with Xc. Do as you wish. I think we can all clear the dispute now because I'm fine with Xc's decision. Except, it is better to keep world tours as part of commitments rather than career. Otherwise the career section just gets messy. Plus, world-tours are something actors put time aside for as a needed step. It's nothing something they like to do but need to do to gain popularity and reach out to the people. It is a known fact actors would prefer to do movies than world tours since they do get to travel with films as well. As for awards, you can crop them down to the important ones which are watched on television each year like Filmfare, Star Screen, Bollywood Awards, Stardust, MTV Awards, IIFA, Zee and the new set of award ceremonies, GIFA. But since most awards are already there, it would be nice to create a separate page for them. Since awards are a recognition of an actor's piece of work. Same for polls. It is a proof of the actor's popularity. We can create one page to put both sections there. And then provide a link for it on the main page. Lastly, I think nominations are just too much too handle. It's better to remove them all. Since it only shows how big of a loser an actor is, it's stupid to note. Except that, for Hollywood actors an Oscar nomination is on an actor's page since they only get a few. Hence, I suggest to keep only Filmfare nomination since it is the only traditional award ceremony which can go back into history and show facts about Nutan and all other legends. I hope everyone agrees now. I don't want anymore disputes. Lastly, I think both Preity and Rani's pages needed to be detailed on controversies and the career section. Plus, the career section should not only note films but maybe what the actor did as research for the movie. I know back in the 90's, not much was done. Not much in even the early 2000's. But as of now, actors are really getting into the role. Their style, haircut, dress sense all give a lot to their role. Like in Ta Ra Rum Pum, it's the first time Rani did training to lose weight for a sexy image. In Baabul, she experimented with an unknown designer to give the character something unique and she did not want to work with Manish Malhotra post Kank for her next release. Things like these. Plus, I think the song 'Aati Kya Khandala' in Ghulam was a national anthem in 1998. It is what put Rani on the map of Bollywood. People started noticing her and calling her the Khandala girl. I know songs are not important. But it's not a Hollywood actor's page. In Bollywood, a song can do wonderful things for an actor's fame. Like i nthe case of Udita Goswami, no one may know her films but most of her songs have been hits. And people know it's the Jhalak Dikhlaja girl. Same for Shamita Shetty. Some people may not even know her name but they know she's the Sharara Girl from the song 'Sharara Sharara'. I'm not saying to put every song. That's absurd. Just two or three. And if not, Aati Kya Khandala is notable and I have a lot of references for it. Thanks Xc for your point of view. It makes sense. - shez_15


 * Thanks for the quick response, Shez.
 * You've done a great job of referencing the article, alongwith 'Shshshsh'. Whatever few refs are left out, I'll definitely get started on them.
 * About Biyar Phool, I agree with you - if we find refs that she actually did the film, then good. Otherwise kick out.
 * How about we differentiate within Personal life, ie. first deal with her life before movies, and then after? It would be more useful to keep everything relating to her personal life in one place, I believe. It would also make the page more organised.
 * You've brought up an excellent point - putting awards and polls on one page would clear out the clutter. I strongly support this idea, Shez, very strong support from my side!
 * The world tours section doesn't seem like a commitment, since theyre doing it for themselves and not for anyone else, so I disagree with having it in Special Commitments. I don't know, honestly, where to put this in. Nor do I agree with having the trip to Pakistan in Special events. Lets think about this, there are plenty of editors looking over the article now, I'm sure someone will come up with something.
 * I agree with your bit that the Career section should also have preperation for the role. I agree, but only to an extent, since adding too much isn't needed - the movie article should have those details. We could include things she did to prepare for the role, provided we have refs, as well as reviews by (unbiased,impartial,notable) film critics. It would add to the section, I believe.
 * Also agree with your bit on the songs. Provided they do have an impact on the actor's career, they should be mentioned. I remember when ghulam was released... frenzy... you're right, we could definitely put the songs in, songs which have added to her career. References, of course, will be needed :)
 * I want to thank you Shez, for the time, effort and energy you've put into this article. It wouldn't have the content it does, without you adding to it. Yes, we've had our differences in the past, and you've had your differences with other editors. But having someone this dedicated work on an article can only be an asset.
 * I'd just like to say that the article has a decent amount of content. A bit of formatting, a bit of cleanup, adding whatever is missing... just these little things, we could get this to GA level. With a few images, and a bit more work, this article could definitely turn into a Featured Article.
 * Again, to everyone here, thanks for co-operating. Looking forward to any further ideas, and all editors' suggestions for the article.
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great!
I think that we have reached a mutual understanding now. You're right about the Personal Life section. It should be one section to make it more organized. Definitely. Plus, the television appearances and trivia section should be deleted. There's no need for it on the page. And of course, some pictures with different looks of her in the career section would be a great idea. But that's only if the career section is highly detailed and long. We need a great writer for that and I think you write great. For the songs, Aati Kya Khandala is what gave her fame initially. I don't think any other song applies. I'll just find you a good reference for that song to get started and I'll put it here so you can check. Besides that, I think we're all set on a good note. Now, we just have to wait for other editors to comment if they do have any objections. Thanks for your time and dedication for now. shez | ☎  04:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see someone's taking inspiration from my sig,eh? ;) xC | ☎  06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)