Talk:Kangana Ranaut

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 • ^Talk2me 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)

 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. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

I'd say I don't completely disagree with Seabirdie's changes in terms of ordering of the media section, but as Krimuk2.0 said, consensus is all that matters here. I see that Seabirdie is not happy with the following:

• 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?

Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 - "Kangana Padma Shri". YouTube. Retrieved 22 January 2023. 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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 • ^Talk2me 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)