Talk:Mallika Sherawat

Edited down?

Has this page been edited down? The last time I came to this page, there was much more text in it...now it seems to have lost more than half of its previous content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.153.69 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 31 March 2005

Major pruning

The quotes are not sourced, not verifiable, and hence should be removed. Most of the trivia were either covered in the text, unverifiable, or advertising. (We don't need to advertise a diamond company.) The article is a bit choppy, and needs more research and connecting prose. Also needs categories, IMDB listing, etc. But it's late and I'm tired and I hope someone else will tie up the loose ends. Zora 09:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why list as a porn star?

I realize that some may be offended by Ms. Sherawat's provocative dress, but that hardly qualifies her as a porn star. A porn performer, by definition, would be someone who performs explicit sexual acts on camera. Ms. Sherawat hasn't even appeared nude. --Konczewski 14:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

Mallika's birthdates listed in the box, and in the biography do not match. It might be tough to find out, but can anyone point me to a verifiable source and correct the mistake? Anagha 10:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

IMDB says 24 Oct, 1972! Mallika

So 1972 it is! Anagha 18:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Even I was under wrong impression about birthdate.So by mistake I changed it.But when I referred to imdb,I realized it.

Saffronguy 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a possibility that IMDb is wrong? everywhere else on the internet, it's 1981! mazzini

IMDB has user-supplied content, like WP. Usually they have enough people looking over the entries that I've found mistakes to be rare, but this may be one of their rare mistakes. Does she have an official website? Zora 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if IMDb is mistaken, there is NO WAY the lady's 24. She's found time to graduate, work as an air-hostess, get married, get divorced and struggle in the industry till she debuted in Jeena Sirf Mere Liye which released in 2002. It's not a time-frame common sense would support. If she's 24, Amitabh Bacchan is 40!! Anagha 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My principal problem here is with the sheer lack of evidence for ANY of this. Until we can find solid evidence (and I refuse to accept IMDb, who based their date change upon an utterly "unofficial" website: [ http://indiafm.com/features/2006/08/31/1499/index.html] that doesn't offer any evidence either. Your own reasons are based, in your own words, on "common sense". You offer no facts either. Certain Indian film/celebrity websites (MSN India, Santabanta, et al) list it as 1981. IMDb lists it as 1972.

In wider perspective, we really don't know all that much about Sherawat. While I've read in several places that she was an air-hostess, I've never found anything approaching recognizable proof for it. Unless the actress gets an official website, or there is a truly credible source of information about her, I'm afraid this article will be utterly against Wikipedia guidelines. In other words, it's all a load of hooey. Dr.rajkumar 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost two years ago, Indian Express ran an "expose" on the actress in their Sunday glossies. They interviewed her ex-husband, parents, etc and published a photograph of her taken while performing the marriage rituals. All her past was raked up there. Is the Indian express a good enough reference? It's a commonly known fact, that Mallika does not like to speak about her marriage and past. Pooja Bedi's show on Zoom had aired clippings of a furious Mallika, raising bloody hell when asked about why she doesn't speak about her marriage. And sir, nowhere has IMDb, claimed to have used the indiafm article as a source. Moreover if IMDb, is not reliable information santabanta and the rest of the net is even worse! Anagha 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable reference to me. As long as we state any claims made by the article as claims rather than facts. It's controversial, this is a living person, we must be careful. Zora 05:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read the Indian Express article that you mention. Nowhere did it state that she was born in 1972. Look carefully and you'll find that the only place on the net where that's stated with any kind of discussion is the indiafm article. I'm not denying that there's an excellent chance she was born in 1981. My point is that 1972 and 1981 are equally unacceptable dates because there is no clear evidence for either of them. We simply don't know. User:Dr.rajkumar—Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 9 October 2006.

Dr. Rajkumar, thanks for the clarification. It's just that, if you agree the Indian Express expose did talk about her work as an airhostess, her run-away marriage, her divorce, and her struggles in Bombay, then it does support my view that she couldn't have completed Jeena Sirf Mere Liye in 2002 when she was just 21! But you are right, 1972 could be wrong as well. So where do we go from here?

Zora, I just did not realise IMDb was not "standard reference". This news kinda shakes my faith in life itself... just kidding, but I did not know IMDb had user supplied content. Mea culpa :) Anagha 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have no option but to remove the 1972 date, especially given Wikipedia's policy regarding "libelous statements". My question: should it be reverted to the 1981 date (however unlikely, are we supposed to follow the "official" birthdates of living people until they are PROVEN wrong?), to "unknown"? Should a note be put in the article on the entire controversy? User:Dr.rajkumar 14 October 2006

I still don't see on what basis '81 is "official" (even with the quotes!). And there's nothing "libelous" about a birthdate either. Maybe we ought to remove it altogether, seeing that both '81, and '72 are quite improbable. Just leave it at 24th Oct. Which incidentally isn't very far away... Maybe some channel/newspaper will cover it! :D Anagha 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Libelous"= "containing, constituting, or involving a libel; maliciously defamatory." Libel= " anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents." If she wasn't actually born in 1972, then writing that she was is HIGHLY libelous. Dr.rajkumar—Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 18 October 2006.

I beg to differ. In my opinion, if a girl born in '72 can look like that in 2006, then it is actually inspiring! I only half-mean that, but I do want to highlight the fact that calling the birtdate "damagingly malicious" is a matter of opinion. Anyway, like Joey would've said, it's a moo point considering that we agreed to not put in a DOB till it's confirmed. Peace! Anagha 19:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello guys, I m the one who changed the birthdate recently depending on Indian express story. You can follow the link as given in reference. There is no credible reference than this. I also reported this on IMDB. Waiting for their approval. Please you also report to IMDB. Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallikawow (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 July 2007

An additional point indicating her birth year must be before 1981: http://bollywoodstaractress.blogspot.com/2007/10/mallika-sherawat-beats-time-and-age.html - McCart42 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AS IMDB shows now her year of birth is neither 72 or 1981. My friends attended school with her and are in their 30s. So 1976 sounds correct to me. - Chandra—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.18.8 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 June 2009

Cleanup

The article had gotten extremely jumbled and I gave it a hard shake. I have the impression that material that used to be there has disappeared. Disputed birth date? References? I also removed some linkspam.

Too many revisions by too many different people and an article turns into incoherent mush. Zora 05:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Last year

umm..wat do mean last year made murder--it wasnt made in 2006--please write the year not last or next year.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.145.13 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 March 2007

Sex symbol?

"Today, she is considered the sex symbol of India" - this statement is at best subjective and should be left out of an encyclopedic entry, given that people can have differing opinions on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.192.73 (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

What happened to the picture of her posing for the magazine? The current picture is... not what people would see out of sherawat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.2.124 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did editors remove my edit?

I included following lines in the article: "Both Khwahish and Murder involved a lot of skin show and exposure.For example, both Khahish and Murder involved love making scenes with rampant show of her cleavage and Murder involved a brief bareback scene of Mallika." What is wrong about this?Why did editors remove my edit?

61.17.195.76 (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The famous MMS scandal of 2005

How come no mention of it? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it wasn't her in the clip and anyone with functioning eyes could see that? 208.125.28.188 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Kaul

Mallika's age and actions by user Shshshsh

Looking at the editing history of this page, I see that user Shshshsh has started to treat it as his own page, removing anything he doesn't like. I would therefore like to remind the user of WP:OWN and warn him that further violations of this principle could result in a report. As for the question at hand, it is no secret that there has been a lot of controversy surrounding Mallika's age - there have been long discussions about the topic on this talk page. Browsing the Internet, you will immediately come up with a lot of different birth years, ranging from 1971 to 1981. I don't know which one is true, and I doubt anyone else does either. What we do know is that the issue is controversial, and that is something we can source. To remove it because we don't like it violates Wikipedia's policies, and Shshshsh's claim that we should not include such a discussion because we should "respect her privacy" is contrary to a lot of fundamental Wikipedia policies. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. As for the quality of the sources claiming 1971 or 1976 as her birth year, they are just as good or bad as the sources claiming 1981. Jeppiz (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What does "fan page" have to do here? You cite UNRELIABLE sources. Starting a section under the title of "Age controversy" is ridiculous. She claims she was born in 1971. It's her personal thing, and not your business. And a section like that is BY NO MEANS encyclopedic. First reach consensus and then add. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you that you cite a source that is just as unreliable, a gossip article about buying condoms. While other users and I have tried to include different versions, including yours, you keep removing everything you don't agree with because you know the WP:TRUTH. Your consistent claims that her age is her personal thing is contary to Wikipedia policies, we do not remove everything that may be controversial.Jeppiz (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"a gossip article about buying condoms"?? It's an interview by Rediff.com - onw of the best known sites in India. Get your facts right. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it never says that she was born on October 24 in 1981, so I removed it. Please feel free to add any sourced birthdate that you can find.Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Since the Rediff interview does not explicitly mention her birthdate or year, it cannot be used as a source for October 24, 1981. If required we can use it to say, "A June 2003 profile at Rediff.com said that she was 21 years old at that time" in the body of the article, although in my view such trivia is optional. Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I support that, but as of now I'm too busy. I'll take care of it later. Thanks for your intervention. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Solution

I found a new source from Rediff (here), in which there was an article congratulating all the Indian actors born in October. Unfortunately, they did not mention years of birth for any of them, but the previous Rediff source dated June 5, 2003 said she was 21 at that point, which means she became 22 in October that same year. Don't know if it becomes an act of synthesis, but I believe it is a fine calculation. And I also found an MSN article, which provides her full date of birth: October 24, 1981. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's borderline, but I think the two rediff sources together can be used to source October 24 1981. The MSN website doesn't look too trustworthy to me, as it seems to be hosting third-party content (from "India Syndicate" in this case), and it's not clear how much editorial oversight MSN exercises. (frankly I am not too sure of either opinions, and don't take them as "admin" diktat). Abecedare (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's stick to using Rediff as a source. I found this source, also from Rediff, giving Mallika's age in 2008 as 36 years. [1]. As there seems to be agreement on using Rediff as a reliable source, and that very source presents her age as being between 28 and 37 years. It all depends on which Rediff article we uses. In fact, this poll (also from Rediff) is not reliable as a source, but it clearly indicates that Rediff also finds the matter unclear [2]. Given this, I think we should stick to mentioning that there are speculations about her age. At least we cannot use Rediff to give 1981 as her uncontested birth year.Jeppiz (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What you cite here is user-based polls and message board discussions in which users question her age; they are not reliable at all and should not interest us, in contrast to the journalist-written articles I cited. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly. The article I posted, [3] giving her age as 36 in 2008, is in the same category as the one you posted. So a little while ago Rediff was fine as a source when it said what you wanted, but now that is doesn't go along with your WP:TRUTH it is suddenly unreliable. This starts to get silly, you cannot eat the cake and have it.Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, I'm talking about the second one. In fact I didn't change anything so calm down. And now that you're saying, the article you posted is not in the same category - it is poll-based, unlike the first one I cited and even the second. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As you would have seen if you had bothered to read what I wrote, I explicitly stated that the second one "is not reliable as a source". The fact that you can vote on an article does not make it more or less reliable. Rediff has at different times published widely different ages for Mallika, it's as simple as that. What I'm suggesting is that we include both versions, as both come from the same source.Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about that. How can a biographical article contain two different ages for one person? As of now, I'm looking for an interview or some video in which she herself declares her age. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You disagree about what, precisely? If you find a video that you can link to, please put it here. Regardless of what it says, however, we should still mention the age controversy. As you yourself stated a few hours ago that Rediff is a reliable source, I see no problem in using it. You ask how a biographical article can contain two different ages. Well, that is precisely why the section on the age controversy is relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rediff does seem to have published different ages for MS. The problem with turning this into a "Age controversy" is that we will be synthesizing a controversy without any reliable sources making that claim. Since, at this moment, we don't have any incontrovertibly reliable source for her age (or claimed age), it would be best to simply leave it out of the article. If and when we have a good source for that, we can add the date. Abecedare (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However, even if we find a good source other than Rediff, it would hardly make sense using only that source to give her age, would it? As both you and Shshshsh have argued that Rediff is a reliable source, it would still be true that different ages have been given. I agree that unless we find a good source explicitly discussing her age controversy, it may be best to leave all references to age out of the article altogether.Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To address your question: "However, even if we find a good source other than Rediff, it would hardly make sense using only that source to give her age, would it?"

That would depend upon the source and the context: for example if MS states in an interview that she was born on xyz date, we can add that to the article attributing it to her (without making any judgment whether its accurate). On the other hand if she won say an Oscar, Padma Shri etc and the accompanying official citation/biography had her age in it, we can add that without any explicit or implicit disclaimers. Of course these are extreme cases; in a more likely scenario of TOI, or other mainstream newspapers mentioning her age, we will need to judge on a case-by-case basis based on the context (eg, serious biographical review, vs passing mention in a celebrity-sighting column). Lets see what sources we can find or get written in the future. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree on that.Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mallika Sherawat - Early life

The part of you have added doesnt look informative. It is highly opinionative. There is no need of so much of story in a wikipedia article. It would be good if you can edit the part to be precise and upto the point. I hope you got my point. It would be disastrous on part of us if we allow negative/positive points about a individual person ( by just providing some news source) in wikipedia

Thanks for your understanding SaatwikG (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Which part does not look informative and which part looks opinionative?? On one hand you are saying it in not informative and in the next sentence you are saying that so much information is not required! Check out the biographies of other persons. It is not simply like typing a Biodata. The information that I have put up is necessary to understand her whole personality and her need to cook up a background. We need not be worried about positive or negative points as long as we are factual. And what I have put up is factual. We are not doing moral policing here. I hope you get the point. Thanks for discussion.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Who knows if those relatives and parents are correct or not? Is Indian express reporter the final judge? The way you concluded whole thing is extremely negative and this is not a neutral point of view in any sense ( the way you added hindi words reflect this completely) Pls check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Who told you that "sherawat" name doesnt exist? Please check http://www.jatland.com/home/Sherawat. And Is there any importance to the article whether she was forced to marry or with her desire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaatwikG (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

we are not to Judge whether relatives are correct or not....simply report facts. Lets us not judge whether Indian express is final Judge..there is no end to it. WP BIO's should give both positive and negative news without bias. And public figures cannot avoid criticism. And no one claims that Sherawat Surname does not exists. Only it is uncommon. Pls read properly.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The version you have added is completely a judgement rather than facts. There is lot of discussion on her early life in her wiki page. Nobody knows what is truth. Thats the reason they haven't added any part of it to the wiki page. Please move this arguments to discussion page SaatwikG (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pls discuss which part you have found objectionable and against wikipedia policies?

As I said, you are of the view that her version is entirely wrong and indian express version is true. This is like a cooking up story. There will be lot of gossip floating around newspapers on movie actors. Should we include all that and try to project it as a true story? Is there any need for all these statements w.r.to her early life? You are trying to portray her character in a wrong way. I checked lot of Indian celebrities wikipages. There is no need for explaining everything in wikipage unless it is highly useful to the article. (1) I have given a link where sherawat is entirely valid surname. Is there any link which says her mother maiden name is sehrawat? (2) How do you know that whether her marriage is a forced one or based on her desire. These are entirely personal things which we are not sure about. (3) I believe below sentences are pure gossip which adds no value to the article and putting them on wiki is highly objectionable.

When her father, Mukesh Kumar Lamba, questioned her she is said to have replied that "Papa, filmon mein yeh sab kehna padta hai achchi publicity ke liye.

Glamour photographers recall that Reema Gill, as she was known then, would avoid any mention of her husband, even deny being married. Her publicity statements also got her father in trouble as he had to spent a lot of time pacifying angry relatives when Mallika has said in interviews, "I come from a place where women are kept in the backyard along with cattle"; that her parents "fled from Rohtak" because relatives disapproved of her career choice; and again, "In my family, no woman has even held a job " SaatwikG (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been reported in paper and Mallika has not raised any objection to the same. You are not able to demonstrate yet that it is against WP policies. Pls read again.....no one is saying that Sherawat is invalid surname. Try to understand difference between invalid and uncommon. I would like more opinion on this edit. Somehow your arguments sounds hollow and without basis. what is fact for one person may be gossip for another. It is necessary to portray true story. Check pages of celebrities, it gives infos on their scandals and affairs. This may be denied and considered by them. But it is to be reported.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Early life

User Indian chronicles is trying to represent Mallika's early life in his own way. For this, he is using Indian express article. There will always be lot of gossip and controversies about movie stars. I believe there is no need to include whole story into the article. So I believe below lines will represent the issue completely and in a precise way.

"During initial days of her career, she claimed that she came from a very conservative small town family and she faced many hurdles from her family in pursuing of her career.[10] However Mallika's family has refuted her story [citation from Indian express]

It would be good to have a discussion on this and get to a logical conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaatwikG (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes please do discuss it here instead of reverting each other endlessly. BollyJeff || talk 19:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there was too much of the controversial stuff in the longer version. I think something should be said about a marriage though if she had one, and a little more about the name change. I would also add that it appears she may be making up some of these stories, based on family and friends accounts, but only if the sources support that. Which sources are considered reliable? I am pretty sure that indiatimes is good, but that only tells her side of the story. Are oneindia and expressindia, which tell the other side, considered reliable? BollyJeff || talk 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bollyjeff for advancing the discussion. User:SaatwikG was reverting my edits without discussing the issue properly. He has no valid arguments. I will also paste arguments advanced by him on my talk page here. He has appointed himself a Judge to take a decision on what is gossip and what is news. The Indian Express is one of the largest and reliable Newspaper in India known for unbiased reporting. It is a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concrned. Most of the celebs page in Wikipedia has section of their scandals and affairs. I dont know why this page should be sanitised just becasue of one of her fans does not agree to it.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No one else is coming forward and you guys are still at it. I will try to come up with a compromise version in time, but please leave the article without the new information first. You should compare not just to other WP articles, but other GA and FA tagged articles; the best of WP. I believe that they avoid too much of this kind of talk due to liability issues. There are some examples of good Indian actor biographies here: Indian_cinema_task_force. BollyJeff || talk

I m not a judge. I m the one who opened discussion even in your user talk page and here.

I have conceded that some part of this may be included from your addition and agreed to include in more reasonable and neutral way and that is what my version.

"During initial days of her career, she claimed that she came from a very conservative small town family and she faced many hurdles from her family in pursuing of her career.[10] However Mallika's family has refuted her story [citation from Indian express]

The present Indian express article is disputed for this wiki page. See earlier discussion on her age and nobody was able to conclude anything from it. This story appeared in 2004. The fact that this part was not added in her "early life" by anybody from several years suggests either this is not important data or it is controversial.

Don't conclude that I m fan of her. If I m a fan of her, I wouldn't have agreed to adding indian express article at all.

Finally my conclusion is that you are trying to put your point of view in the wiki page quoting some newspapers. And there is no need for so much of her quotes in hindi to be included in the wiki page. Wiki page should be minimal and precise. Hope you got my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaatwikG (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BollyJeff for bringing some clariry in the article.One more change will bring more clarity. I dont understand if there is any need for two sentences for describing the background on "sherawat" name. "sherawat" surname does exist. Please check http://www.jatland.com/home/Sherawat. Its possible that her friends might not be knowing her parents surname properly. Also, her name itself is adopted one. So whats the big deal about "sherawat"? There is one sentence in the first paragraph about her name. I think that is sufficient. I leave it to you to make the required change SaatwikG (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure about that, since that link redirected to Sehrawat, but I made a change anyway, since every other source shows the "Sh" spelling. I am looking for a reliable source to back up a claim that her background is shrouded in mystery. If you can find one please add it. BollyJeff || talk 13:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you see the jat land wiki " Serawat, Sharawat is gotra of Jats found in Haryana". I guess you know that Mallika belongs to Jat community in haryana. When we convert hindi surnames into english, people often use them differently. I find many people in Facebook with sherawat surname. We have no evidence to prove that "sherawat" doesn't belong to Mallika's mother. And also I think no one is bothered about her surname. So there is no need of any mention of her surname controversy. And Thanks for taking some time to settle this issue. SaatwikG (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Saatwick you need to understand and read the edits more clearly. No where it is written in the article that Sherawat surname does not exist. It is your own interpretation. The link provided by you of Jatland is not required and does not mean anything because the question that whether surname exists or not does not arise. All the edit says that it is unusual sounding name. Thats all. Why dont you debate on more relevant points? Also understand what is the meaning of neutral as per wiki policy. It does not mean hiding the negative and writing positive. Neutral means simply reporting the facts whether they meet your expectation or not. Unfortunately the way you are trying to sanitize the page is against the wikipedia policy of NPOV. In fact when you read Mallika's interview so many contradictions are evident that it is obvious that she is cooking up the stories. For eg. She claims that she is using her mother's surname because she supported her. In another interview she has claimed that her parents opposed her, her mother trashed for applying lipstick and she still wears ghoonghat and her father is a Zamindaar. [4] It is highly unlikely that such a conservative mother that trashes her daughter on applying lipstick and wears ghoonghat would support her film career. Also unlikely that a zamindar father of a small town who treats women like cattle would send his daughter to Delhi Public School, Mathura Road which is a private co-educational and boarding school in New Delhi. Infact if you were to check her each and every claim there would be many contradictions. That is what Indian Express, a highly respected News Paper also known for investigative Journalism (just check out the IE article: they have interviewed almost everyone related to mallika: her teachers, friends, father, relatives, neighbours, photographers) has exposed while other mags and newspaper are lapping up all gossip dished out by Mallika. Still if you all want to keep this page sanitised against the wikipedia policy then keep it that way.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

With the rediff source, I guess its okay now. IMDB is not normally acceptable for gossip though. BollyJeff || talk 20:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Indian Chronicles, Please limit yourself in branding me. I would havent agreed to BollyJeff's changes if I m trying to sanitize the page. Good that you raised a point "Neutral means simply reporting the facts whether they meet your expectation or not". I m only trying to get this in place. You may have some good/bad opinion about somebody but dont try to bring your view into wikipedia. So please stop teaching me. My only argument is there is no need of two lines for discussing "sherawat" name. That is my stand. I leave it to BollyJeff to conclude.SaatwikG (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Indian Chronicles, Here are two things that shows your misinterpretation. (1) The rediff interview says "but it's really sad that I come from a state where female infanticide rate is the second highest in my country and women are really treated like cattle and I really wish things would change there" but you interpreted as "she still wears Ghoonghat and that women are treated like cattle at her home" She talked about her state not her home. (2) "although she has reportedly portrayed herself either as unmarried or married against her wishes" It would be good if you can bring a interview where she said she is unmarried or she married against her wishes" instead of getting into conclusions. I agree that she never talked about her marriage but she never denied it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaatwikG (talk • contribs) 09:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Saatwick, as usual you are misinterpreting as you did in surname. You are not reading the references in Article and deleting the same. Bollyjeff is not the final authority, neither you nor me. And as usual you have not be able to reply to me fully and are selectively trying to reply me in your attempt to sanitise this page. In reply to you:

• I am not bring my view but it is clearly referenced in reliable source.
• "she still wears Ghoonghat and that women are treated like cattle at her home" She talked about her state not her home. Just read the reference which I had added. As usual you reverted without reading it and then claimed it is not there. See this I am reporducing the link hee as you are conviniently ignoring it. [5]
• Just see the IE article, she hid her marriage and portrayed herself as unmarried. Again you missed out as usual and are cherry picking to suit your view point.
• I will ask for more editors to chip in and take their views.

--Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why do you want bring all the content in Indian express into the wikipedia.

• Get a straight article where mallika denied marrying. Mallika got into industry in 2002 where TV and internet are available. So if you cant bring a straight article about marriage, dont just argue citing Indian express where a third person expressed his views.

• IMDB just collected some quotes from other reference. Actual source needed for "ghunghat" thing

SaatwikG (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read the edit properly. The clearly edit says that she used to deny her marriage. This was at the time when she was just new to industry and still not an interviewable personality. So there I dont think there will be a so-called straight article for this. If you wnat it, why don't you search for it. Now that it is out in open she will not deny her marraihe status. For wikipedia, primary sources are not necessary, secondary sources are sufficient. Pls read the wikipedia policy. everything cannot come out of horses mouth. Just because she will not confirm or deny something that does not mean it happened.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is serious claim that she used to deny her marriage. Since I didnt find any source proving that, this cant be part of the article. Also you are trying to put whole Indian express article into this article. Let bring some more editors to approve your additions. Until then, I m reverting to BollyJeff's part. Let others review and conclude whatever is bestSaatwikG (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just beacuse you did not find any source and are too lazy to read references does not mean you can do anything. You are resorting to vandalism by deleteing the referenced edits. I have been very patient with you. One more time you do it and I will report you to Admin to block you. Treat this as a final warning.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My take

I completely agree with the version of Bollyjeff which is well written and structured, and I understand the reason behind the removals made by SaatwikG. Indian Chronicles (talk · contribs)'s version is sourced but it lacks neutrality and is evidently added to show Sherawat in a bad light.

I think the article should be restored back to Bollyjeff's version. If three editors, including (obviously) Bollyjeff, SaatwikG, and myself, agree to make it that way then there's a clear consensus which must be respected.

If edit warring is continued from now on, this will be reported and taken care of by an administrator as soon as possible. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on this, I have reverted to an older version. Thanks for your opinion. BollyJeff || talk 16:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree on this consensus at all. It is quite clear that few of her fans are hell bent on sanitising this page. Shahid has been involved in content dispute before hence his view do not matter. However I will leave it to more saner editors to make NPOV edits.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BollyJeff and Shahid for bringing some neutrality into the article. The early life part from Indian express was never there before in this article. If anyone among 3 of us were a fan, we would never agree to the second paragraph in Early life. So please stop accusing people and try to get "balanced view". That would be good for your future wikipedia edits. SaatwikG (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indian Chronicles, there's one thing which does not matter here and it is your opinion about other editors and the fact that you do not agree with a consensus, which does not have to be agreed with, but respected. Three editors disagree with you and you will have to accept that. Also, please try to be more civil as not once have you already got personal with other editors. This page will be reverted and if you keep edit warring, you will be reported at ANI, definitely consider it a warning. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shahid thanks for your sermon. I am aware of the WP rules. Read what I have written. I have said I will leave it to saner editors to salvage this page. And yet you come jumping to warn me not to edit this page. I will respect consensus till more editors comment on it, but I need not accept this consensus. I have been civil and patient. I can see the truth being subverted, but I will follow the WP rules. Your threats of reporting me are meaningless as I have been within Wikipedia rules. I can also be as pompous and warn you but I will not.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between a threat and a warning. I never warned you not to edit the page, but not to keep edit warring. You have not at all been within WP rules as you kept edit reverting without starting a discussion at time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On Sherawat Name

There is a doubt among some of the authors that it may possible that she kept "sherawat" name for better sounding and friends do think that way. But recent article from Times of India says it is indeed her mother's gotra or maiden name http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mallikas-great-grandfather-more-popular-than-her-at-her-native-village-in-Haryana/articleshow/7361685.cms So i m planning to remove this part of article " Friends have said, though, that she opted for the surname Sherawat for its distinctive sound and not, as Mallika later said, because of her strained relationship with her father and his relatives." Please discuss if you have any concern.SaatwikG (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious that its her mother's maiden name; that's already been stated and sourced. That doesn't make the other sourced parts any less relevant, though. I don't see why you should want to remove it. BollyJeff || talk 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The earlier article which was adopted here was : http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=31255 It actually says her mother's maiden name is sehrawat not sherawat as claimed by friends. Quoting here from the article: "Friends say she opted for the uncommon surname Sherawat (a modification of her mother’s maiden name Sehrawat) for its distinctive sound and not, as Mallika later said, because of her strained relationship with her father and his relatives." And the recent article says sherawat is infact her mother's maiden name. "She chose the gotra of her mother – Sherawat". I think there is no need of so much of controversy here on "sherawat" name as the whole name itself is adopted. we need to just quote that sherawat is her maiden name and remove other part. SaatwikG (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The part in parens about the alternative spelling is not even mentioned in the WP article now, so I don't see the need to remove the part about the reason for using the name. Do what you must, but I would really hate to see you start up another edit war with that other guy. BollyJeff || talk 16:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shafeekbsb, 25 June 2011

Birth Year: April 1974

Shafeekbsb (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

Malika Sherawat was born on October 24th 1981 in Rohtak, Haryana. http://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/blog_Mallika_Sherawat_celebrated_her_26th_birthday_538.jsp Boing83 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - Did you read the 2 discussions above on this subject? We are looking for an admission by her of her own age. Someone's blog is not reliable enough. BollyJeff || talk 02:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Role in The Myth is incorrect

In The Myth she plays Samantha, a person who helps Jackie escape from India. The princess is played by Korean actress Kim Hee-sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.103.254 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - fixed 19:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Mallika at ShaadiSepehle audiorelease.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mallika at ShaadiSepehle audiorelease.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mallika at ShaadiSepehle audiorelease.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

This thing can be added to the main page; since this is not an ordinary thing:

She has been called as “a pure soul” by Shri Shankaracharya Raghaveshwara Bharathi swamiji. Sherawat also said to have broke ground for the pontiff’s Hanuman temple project at a cave which is said to be God Hanuman's birth place (according to shankaracharya) at Gokarna. - Bharathiya 15:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Is this really controversial? Is it a very important event in her life, or just some publicity thing? Also, there should usually be no separate section for criticism and controversies per WP:BLPSTYLE. BollyJeff | talk 15:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this absolutely is, only if you understand who Mallika is and what she has always been known for. A 'Bombshell'! Moreover, she is often identified as one of the sex goddesses/symbols in Bollywood. This being the truth on one hand, you must also understand the truth on the other hand as to who the said-swamiji is - he is one of the Shankaracharyas with a lineage. Swamijis are virgins and maintain certain distance from women at all times. However, in this case, He said to have invited her to this religious event (to Hanuman's stoning ceremony - who is known to be a virgin god - a male god) which seems to be inappropriate and declaring her "pure soul" is controversial.

In Hinduism, Shankaracharyas are held in high esteem. They are similar to the position of Pope in Christianity. So when a Shankaracharya quotes her as "pure soul" in public, this is indeed something. For Mallika, it is no doubt a great recognition. It may also be a gimmick to gain media attention, as far as Mallika's intentions go. The incident did occur, hence it is important, nonetheless. The topic does have sufficient reliable sources.

I do not intend to say anything else or more about this, but what I have said is sufficient enough to prove that this is indeed a controversy and is one of the important event in her life. -- Bharathiya 03:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC) talk

Needs better image

I've restored the portrait image per WP:PERTINENCE. None of the images currently in the article are very good, but at least in this she's looking near the camera. Cropping it to a portrait would be an improvement, but what we need is a real portrait rather than a paparazzi pic. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2013

Please change the part where it is said that the word mallika means 'queen'. Mallika is a sanskrit work which means jasmine. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallika 61.12.17.222 (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

While you're right that the word Mallika means 'jasmine' in Sanskrit, it also means 'empress' in various languages. In the interview that is used to source the discussion of her stage name, the actress herself says she picked the stage name 'Mallika' because it means 'empress'. That being the case, I don't think we should change the article to go against the reason the person herself has given for her stage name.Jeppiz (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2013

In the second line (or the third sentence) of the article, "She than appeared in successful romantic comedy Pyaar Ke Side Effects (2006) which won her much critical acclaim", the than should be changed to then.

Please make the spelling/grammatical change. Thank you.

91.75.70.162 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done BollyJeff | talk 17:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Real age

Edit war existed about her age, different website indicating her age differently, in that aspect, the perfect source, is her official accounts, Mallika, Officials indicate her as 37 year old—bor[n] ₡ 1976, (HERE). Smauritius (' . ') 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Did not marry Bachelorette winner

I cannot edit the article (unregistered). But the article says she married the winner of a game show on 8 November 2013 without offering any reference (The reference offered is an internal Wikipedia link). A registered user needs to fix that. 122.176.9.79 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please look into her personal life column. I don't think she is married to Vijay Singh yet. There are no proofs or photographs of her marriage online.

167.219.48.10 (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've also removed the other marriage mentioned as there was no mention of it in the source. Peter James (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested correction

I cant search something from wikipedia Sonasivaliyeva (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2016

Please change "Sarabhai vs Sarabhai 1 episode, 2005" to "Sarabhai vs Sarabhai Season 2, Episode 28" Reference attached Meetme2meat (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Done - Managerarc™ ^talk 00:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Change both 'Dirty Politics' link value to 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Politics_(film)' Sanjar1998.msa (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 02:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggested correction

Could you please change "Sherawat has established herself as a sex symbol" by "Sherawat is an international artist". Rebeeniel (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)