Jump to content

Talk:Madhubala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Son of Khaldun (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 11 August 2016 (I have added a discussion section which a tribute being payed to Madhubala in upcoming movie 1969.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Trivia

  • When Madhubala was an infant, an esteemed Muslim spiritual man predicted that she would earn fame and fortune, but would lead an unhappy life and die at a young age.[citation needed]
  • Filmaker Mohan Sinha taught Madhubala to drive a car when she was only 12 years old.
  • She was an avid fan of Hollywood and after learning to speak fluent English, frequently watched American movies on her home projector.
  • When nervous she suffered from uncontrolled outbursts of giggles and laughter which sometimes antagonised co-stars and directors.
  • When Guru Dutt first announced his classic film Pyaasa (1957) it was with Madhubala and Nargis in the feminine lead roles. The parts were eventually played by Mala Sinha and Waheeda Rehman who both became stars with the film.
  • With the exception of Geeta Dutt in Mr. & Mrs. '55 (1955), most of Madhubala's memorable songs were dubbed by Lata Mangeshkar or Asha Bhosle. Madhubala proved lucky for both. The songs from Mahal picturised on Madhubala in 1949 were some of Lata's earliest successes; nine years later, Asha's vocals for the actress in four 1958 films established her as a major playback singer, rivaling her own sister, Lata.
  • Madhubala's sister Chanchal was also an actress and bore a striking resemblance to her famous sibling. She appeared in Nazneen (1951), Naata (1955), Mahalon Ka Khwab (1960) and Jhumroo (1961) alongside Madhubala. She also played prominent roles in Mehboob Khan's Mother India (1957) and Raj Kapoor's Jis Desh Men Ganga Behti Hai (1960)
I am relocating this section here to preserve the quality of the article. Please feel free to move relevant facts to appropriate sections. --Mayuresh 15:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue

Recently someone filled the article with the distilled essense of decades of irresponsible film gossip. None of it is referenced and I suspect most of it is unverifiable. I don't have time to sort it out now -- someone PLEASE rescue this article! Zora 18:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still disputed

I just wrote another article and I can't stay up to rewrite this one -- it is STILL a mess. It is full of scurrilous gossip and personal opinions. Zora 11:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the worst articles yet!

Is this what an encyclopedic entry supposed to be? This one comes straight from some trashy film magazine oozing with oodles of gossip and biased opinion!

The editors of Wikipedia better take note of this!!!

Personal opinion

I reverted Neutralwriter's rewrite of the first para, in which he declared that she was the best Bollywood actress ever. That is mere personal opinion. Suppose some people like Nargis better? Or Hema Malini? Or Meena Kumari?

We can't make value judgements. I know it's hard not to do so; other editors keep correcting me on this all the time. But we do have to limit ourselves to stating things that can be referenced ("the film was very popular and grossed Rs. XXXX") or quoted. If a well-known critic says that Madhubala was the best, then we can quote that. Zora 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Sections

In an effort to improve this article, I'm going to move the order of the sections to be roughly chronological. It makes no sense to talk about her marriage AFTER discussing her death. MlleDiderot 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a mess chronologically; now her illness appears before it's diagnosed. I tried to clean up some of the obvious grammatical problems, but it needs a lot of help from someone who knows her career. Agathman 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu spelling

Is مدھُبال correct? That says Madhubaal.

I think مدّھوبلا would work better. Irtiqaa 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct one I think is مدھو بالا. This one pronounce like the original name and most common. [1] --Webkami 10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New MADHUBALA page

Dear Zohra and others. I have attempted to clean up the madhubala page. I am an avid fan of hers and but tried to stick to facts and omit opinions or gossip. I have read widely on MAdhubala and have added my reference points at the end. I hope you like the page better I wish I could also add a more flattering image of her. I hope you support the changes. Regards Navsikand 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Nav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.81.196.169 (talk) 20:30, August 30, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Need A New Madhubala Page

In her filmography, it says she starred in a 1971 movie, even though she died in '69. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.6.4 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for 1971 film

Because it was released two years after her death, as I mentioned in the article!Navsikand (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Madhubala-color.jpg

Image:Madhubala-color.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Image Explanation

Let me explain why I changed the image. The newer image is more accurate for a number of reasons. Firstly, Madhubala rarely acted in color films. Second, she was rarely seen in the sex-symbol pose as seen in the outgoing picture. In fact, that image creates a misunderstanding that Madhubala was a sex-symbol (Monroe-like). That is just not true. True, she was attractive, but not in a disgusting sexual manner, but rather with otherworldly romantic charm. Anyone who has seen her classics such as Mughal-e-azam, Kaala Pani, Chalti ka naam gadi will notice that she was not at all like Monroe. Madhubala never wore sexually suggestive clothing like Monroe - perhaps except in the last movies, from which the earlier picture was taken. Just because two popular actresses die early doesn't mean they have isomorphic characters. Even the difference in their individual deaths displays something about their characters. While Madhubala died of an incurable cardiac disease, Marilyn Monroe's death was probably a direct result of her mental instability.

For those of you concerned about fair-use: it's quite fair to use a movie still in wide circulation through posters and the internet. Besides, I have touched it up in Photoshop, so it is my work, not some plagiarized rubbish. Please don't delete this image without letting me know!Papush123 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: New Image Explanation

Papush123 thanks for the new image which is a lovely one. However I must say I find it rather offensive that you called one of my comments uncited rubbish and dissmisivly deleted the image. I re-wrote the Madhubala page over a year ago, replacing one that was full of scuriouls gossip and scandal. The fact that it has remained largely unchanged in that time is testiomony to the accuracy and hard work I put into it.

I have read extensivley on Madhubala and seen most of her films. What I said was is that she is often compared by film media and historians to Marilyn Monroe, inluding two of the biographies i have cited in the refernce section. I was not expressing a personal opinion. A comparison does not mean that the two actresses were identical in every aspect. Naturally the overt sexuality of a monroe would never have been an acceptable image for an Indian film heroine in the 1950's. MAdhubala's sexual appeal was a lot more subtle and understated but equally as potent, a factor that made her much ahead of her time and set her appart from every other actress of the period.

More over she is largley remembered for being an extremeley versatile actress, so while she played traditional and demure heroines in films like Mughal e Azam, Sangdil, etc she definitly esayed more provacative and modern roles in films like Sayyan, Mr & Mrs 55, Howrah Bridge, Kal hamara haie etc Even the film chalti Ka naam gaadi she appeared rain soaked and sultry which may seem tame now but in the 50's was quite daring. Even the song Mohe pahgat pe from Mughal e Azam raised eyebrows at the time for her rather daringly small choli and suggestive expressions between salim and anarkali. Being sexually alluring doesnt equate with flesh display, nor is it a negative thing if it isnt overt and the only thing one is famous for. Definitly not the case with MAdhubala, but a significant part of her allure and screen persona, that has helped keep her appeal on-going with new generations of film goers. That is the similarity with monroe and has been mentioned in numerous articles and books on her.

Lasty the image that you replaced was NOT form the later period but in her fledgling career, in the early 1950's, and also one that captures her lively and gamine appeal.

I always enjoy healthy disccussion and debate but please refrain from calling other peoples work rubbish or using other such inflamatory and disrespectful language. Many thanks. Navsikand (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification

All right - but you really hadn't cited the information before. I stand corrected though, as she is popularly compared to Monroe. I apologize if the word "rubbish" was insulting; I didn't mean it to be so. In fact, I do regret suddenly deleting the picture without informing you. I shouldn't have done that: it was a great addition to the article.
However, I still object to it being the main picture. It's in color, while she generally acted in B&W pictures, but even more than that, it almost creates the impression that she was a westernized sex star. And if you look at Madhubala's life as an actress, you'll notice that she fit that former view much more than the latter. Firstly, she was love with Dilip Kumar for five years, and then married Kishore Kumar. This stands in sharp contrast with Monroe, who married thrice, and lived not a poignant life, but one fraught with mental trouble. Of course, I agree why she is compared to Monroe. But don't get me wrong - I agree that the film media makes the comparison, and not you.


Besides that, you will agree that she was still remembered for her great screen presence and not her corporeal display (as you correctly note above). For example, look at a Youtube clip of Ek Saal. There, a viewer comments about the "old fashioned feminine modesty in expressions, attire and adornment, and the beauty and grace of Madhubala."


And honestly, if you show a random sample of Indians the two pictures in question and ask, "Which one is Madhubala?", almost all participants will choose the picture I uploaded. And you too agree the picture is great.


That said, fans of old movies such as myself appreciate the significant work you've done in cleaning up the article. You are truly an expert on her life, and Wikipedia needs more people like you!

Papsh13 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response Hi Papsh thanks for your response. I understood your point about monroe so elaborated the point to put it into context, I hope your more comfortable with it now and thanks for pointing the oversight out.

The image replacment isnt a problem for me, as I said before it is a lovely one and possibly the most widely seen and used image of her. I agree its more relavent as a main image. It would have been nice to include the other deleted image somwhere else in the atricle as I personaly feel madhubala's complete versatility and abilty to play a full spectrum of roles, was an impressive and significant part of her talnet and a thing that placed her above most of the other actreses at that time.

There certainly has never been anyone like her before or since. Its good to know there are fans like you out there, who are still passionate about her and her work and thanks for your interest and input in the article. Navsikand (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion of the images Concerning both the images on the page: I agree with the editor who said that these images aren't representative of Madhubala. This is partly because they're in colour, but also because (and this is especially true of the 2nd image) she's not very recognizable in them. The B&W images I tried to use were a) more recognizable, being 'classic' images; b) more representative of her 'look'; and c) much better and more beautiful pics. I know this is subjective (what isn't?), but I'm also basing it on the opinion of several other people who recognize Madhubala. The current images have to be the 2 ugliest pictures of her I've ever seen; hardly representative of this great beauty. Can we please change them? Ragasuran (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navsikad, can you please add citations to the section concerning her health problems? Descriptions of medical conditions typically require reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Madhubala of Mughal-e-Azam be merged into this article Madhubala as they speak of one and the same person. (Looks like some fan made a separate article.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Unjust

I Priya Aravind oppose the merger. Being a woman myself, I have created this absolutely neutral perspective of Madhubala and is based on strong references. The other article: Madhubala was created probably by a male fan of the actress and is non-neutral.Priyaaravind (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Priya! We don't create two separate articles about same subject, irrespective of whether they are neutral or not (& certainly irrespective of creator's gender). If you find this article to be biased, you discuss it here on it's talk page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discriminative

Not a single sentence that was a part of my original article: "Madhubala of Mughal-e-Azam " can be seen in this current article: 'Madhubala' after it was merged. If merging implies total deletion of my article, then I protest and complain to Wikipedia of gender bias and absolute discrimination. Where are the contents of my article: "Madhubala of Mughal-e-Azam"? Why did you not include them in the article: 'Madhubala' if you intended to merge these articles? The fact is that the entire content of my article was deleted although I have not violated any Wikipedia rules or regulations and so, I Priya Aravind very strongly protest this merger and wish to complain of gender discrimination and curbing of freedom. Freedom that has been the hallmark of Wikipedia. Priyaaravind (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Your so called non-biased non-discriminant article was nothing but essay on Mohan Deep's book "Mystery and Mystique". We don't write only one person's views here on Wikipedia. That material is suitable for your blog, not encyclopedia. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MERGER OPPOSED

Merger opposed and complaint regarding the unjust deletion of the article: "Madhubala of Mughal-e-Azam" in the name of merger: First of all, Mohan Deep did not create the article: "Madhubala of Mughal-e-Azam", I Priya Aravind created it and used the biography of Madhubala written by Mohan Deep as one of the references (there were other references too). So, the article is not the personal view of its creater that is me! For that matter, even this article: 'Madhubala' uses Mohan Deep's article as a reference. So, how come the double standards. The fact is that most parts of the article: 'Madhubala' are taken from blog sites and it is obvious from the list of external sources shown in the end. You just want to delete my article because I don't write odes and oodles of good things about Madhubala taken from unreliable film magazines. Practice what you preach first. If my article is considered unsuitable for encyclopedia, then this article: Madhubala is also unsuitable as it is full of content taken from blog sites. On one end you consider Mohan Deep's biography unreliable (again it is your discriminatory view) on the other end you want to selectively use it as a reference in the article: Madhubala.Priyaaravind (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you exactly want? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The very fact that my article (Madhubala of Mughal-e-Azam) remained unchanged/unchallenged for more than 2 months in Wikepedia shows that it conformed to Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise it would have been deleted on the very first day of its creation. Since it could not be deleted as per Wikipedia regulations, a cunning way was adopted to delete it in the guise of a merger. Now, there are two options left. Let my atricle be distinct/seperate from the main article (Madhubala) but you can choose to re-title it as "Madhubala's biography by Mohan Deep". Second option is to include the entire content of my article in the main article (Madhubala) saying that there are many biographies on Madhubala and this is one of them (with disclaimer). Priyaaravind (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC) (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA: I deserve justice

My article has been unjustly deleted eventhough I have followed all Wikipedia rules and regulations. Please restore my article. Priyaaravind (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information of Mohan deep's biography is messed up

The newly added information on Mohan deep's biography is too much messed up with other things in this article it was better before these information was added so please revert it or make a clean up.

Also make this article like an article not like a blog For example this line :- "Madhubala had several affairs of heart and Mohan Deep, described as 'Indian version of Kitty Kelly', investigated her life by interviewing on audio-cassettes over 200 persons including her leading men Shammi Kapoor, Ashok Kumar, director Kalidas, Shakti Samanta and many others besides locating an old, forgotten interview Madhubala's sister had given to All India Radio (Source: Sahyong Times International' Sahyog Times International(July-Aug 1996)for his book on the actress. Here is one more link: One more link to Sahyog Times International " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gag21friendz (talk • contribs) 11:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tone, style, neutrality

There's rather too much emphasis on the Mohan Deep biography, which is referenced in an inappropriate manner so that it is impossible to tell what is taken from the biography and what stems from other sources. The "Personal life and controversies" section is currently written as if the opinions presented in Deep's biography are facts, and it contains a lot of unencyclopedically salacious detail (some of it not in English, so it is difficult for most readers to understand it). Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a gossip magazine, and the section in question needs to be edited for tone. Preferrably by somebody who (unlike me) understands the non-English terms used. --bonadea contributions talk 16:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All are socks and have been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Priyaaravind. Let they be blocked and then cleanup can start. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All efforts taken to improve tone, style, neutrality

All efforts have been taken by me to improve the tone, style and neutrality. Those sentences which have earlier been perceived as POV have been toned down and put under quotes. Similarly, the part taken from the biography and that taken from other sources have been clearly separated wherein the paragraph that criticizes the biography is now a separate paragraph and it ensures a neutral point of view. The issue of emphasis on one biography does not arise because the rest of the biography is mainly based on Khatija Akber's biography and only one paragraph is about Mohandeep's biography. Ashanker1982 contributions talk

Some edits have been made, but the only result is that it is now clear that the new paragraph consists only of long quotes taken straight from the unofficial biography and cobbled together to form an incohesive paragraph. This is inappropriate for several reasons, and the POV and tone issues have not by any means been "taken care of". There is also a serious case of WP:UNDUE emphasis on the unofficial gossip-style biography (the other biography you mention is quoted in one single sentence). The mainenance tags are still very relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 18:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Validating Information

It is difficult to universally validate any information on Madhubala, particularly because she gave interviews on very rare occasions. The only way to clarify rumours or hearsay about Madhubala is to ask her colleagues or relatives, collate their different views together and triangulate one information with the other, i.e. affirm, challenge or disconcert one information against the other. Khatija Akbar's book I Want to Live: The Story of Madhubala (2011[1997]) clearly mentions that the book is based on interviews the authored has taken of Madhubala's colleagues, friends and relatives including Dilip Kumar, Ashok Kumar,Shammi Kapoor, Nadira, Nimmi, Anil Biswas, Naushad Ali, Kidar Sharma, Sultan Ahmed, Om Prakash, K. N. Singh, Begum Para, Shammi, Ajit, Minu Mumtaz, Sheila Dalaya (who played the Madhubala's sister in Mughal-e-Azam), Sitara Devi, Sushila Rani Patel and B.K. Karanjia among others (Akbar, 2011,Kindle Locations 45-47). All of these people have worked and seen Madhubala closely and are/were in a good position to talk about her. Because of this background, and because direct quotations from these interviewees are used, the claim that Khatija Akbar's biography is the most authoritative is valid. By contrast, Mohan Deep's The Mystery and Mystique of Madhubala (1996) does not clarify the "reliable" sources of the author which remain conspicuously anonymous; many "dialogues" among the parties are used as if the author were the eye-witness and information used as if it were the author's first-hand knowledge and which are not verifiable by any contemporary or recent sources. Because there is no justification or rationale of the sources and because information contained in the book are unverifiable, the book can only be considered a fiction - coming directly out the author's imagination which has no research or fact value. Extended quotations from Mohan Deep's book have therefore been omitted from this biographical account which should ideally give more emphasis on valid and reliable materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma130677 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spousal Name Change from Kishore Kumar to Karim Abdul

user:The Avengers, Including that Kishore Kumar changed his name to Karim Abdul is a crucial piece of information. He changed it while he was married to Madhubala and it shows his conversion to Muslim, which shows that the marriage was based on religious grounds. This is therefore a critical piece of information that should not be censored. Xtremedood (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Madhubala. You can insert it in article. Not in infobox. Kishore Kumar never publicly declared about his alternate name. He was never known by that name. He never practised Islam. It was done only for marriage. After Madhubala's death he was totally Hindu. His last rites were performed according to Hindu tradition in 1987. Watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymzOWbaW6vw Sourced or un-sourced it can't be inserted directly in infobox.--The Avengers 17:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was cremated. The Avengers 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence stated the point. It is for Madhubala and if he changed his name and religion for her sake then it should be mentioned. I think this is a critical piece of information. It doesn't matter to this article if he returned to Hinduism later. Xtremedood (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's already part of the article in the personal life section. Your comment about censorship don't apply. You want to highlight it in infobox, which is inappropriate. Mike Tyson and Michael Jackson also converted to Islam, but as they were known by their old name, it's not mentioned in infobox. In this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhubala#Personal_life_and_controversies the third paragraph starts as "Madhubala married Kishore Kumar in 1960 after Kishore Kumar converted to Islam and took up the name Karim Abdul,". I didn't remove that information. You are unnecessarily trying to highlight in infobox.The Avengers 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Xtremedood: Good news for you is that Mamta Kulkarni and Yuvan Shankar Raja have converted to Islam. This news will make you happy. You can edit their page according to your will.The Avengers 08:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with Madhubala? Since the spouse is mentioned in the infobox, it should also be mentioned that he changed his name (even just for her sake). Xtremedood (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute as 1969

I have added a section of tribute which is being payed to Madhubala as a dramatized biography in upcoming movie "1969". Sonakshi Sinha is playing the role of Madhubala while Kishor Kumar is being played by Ranbir Kapoor. Trailer of the movie has gained 1.5 million viewers on youtube. I think addition of this section is justified and would be a good addition to her charismatic career, biography and influence.

Son of Khaldun (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-gb%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLJ&q=%D9%85%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%88+%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madhubala&oldid=733955415"