Talk:Juhi Chawla

message: Thank you for providing sources to show that "leading actress" is indeed held by more than one person at a newspaper. I do apologoize for the one edit where there was indeed a source cited at the end of the sentence which was obscured by the wikicoding when I viewed it; but I do not apologize for taking the weasel comment and assigning it to the source from which it came.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I always feel "leading actor" is better than reigning queen, number one etc. Shahid • Talk2me 07:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "leading actress" 

message: Her name written in Punjabi IS in fact needed. She is a punjabi, born in Punjab. It makes sense to write her name in Punjabi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.85.174 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punjabi name 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Juhi Chawla.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: "Juhi Chawla was born in Ambala, Haryana, India on 13th November although the year is uncertain" is in conflict with the lead and the infobox when 1967 is the year.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Juhi Chawla was born on 13 November 1967, and raised in Ambala, Haryana, India.
*Mid Day, 14 Nov 2021 said that Juhi Chawla's 54th birthday was on Saturday, i.e. 13 November 2021.  If correct, that would make her date of birth 13 November 1967.
*Free Press Journal, 13 Nov 2021 said "Actress Juhi Chawla celebrates her 54th birthday today. was born on November 13, 1967, in Mumbai, India."
*The Indian Express, 21 Aug 2015 said "She was all of 18 when she participated in the Miss India pageant and won it. Actress Juhi Chawla, now 47".  Assuming that her birthday was 13 November, that would make her year of birth 1967.
*Hindustan Times, 6 Mar 2023 says "Juhi Chawla was the winner of Miss India 1984 and later went on to participate in Miss Universe. She was only 18 years old."  Assuming that the contest was before her birthday on 13 November, that would make her year of birth 1965 (or 1966 if the contest were held after her birthday in 1984).
*India TV News, 13 Nov 2021 says that Juhi Chawla won Miss India in 1984 and that "Miss India Juhi Chawla was just 18 when she won the title." "The actress was just 18 when she won the beauty pageant in 1984. In the same year, she also won the Best Costume Award at the Miss Universe contest." Assuming that the contest was before her birthday on 13 November, that would make her year of birth 1965 (or 1966 if the contest were held after her birthday in 1984).
I think the citations for her winning Miss India 1984 at the age of 18 show that the claim that she was born in 1967 is implausible.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

text: This means the problem is with the last two sources saying she was 18 and not the ones giving her exact date of birth. I watched her interview where she said she was 16 actually. Both Hindustan Times and India TV sources come from the same entertainment desk, they do not even have a byline or attribution, it's just some poorly calculated number, which was circulated. Please reach consensus before removing sourced information all of a sudden. Shahid • Talk2me 23:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There it is, two sources from books have been added. I hope the balance between a random article from the entertainment desk of HT, which is a circulated story appearing in all newspapers, and books, is clear. Shahid • Talk2me 23:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Juhi Chawla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915022131/http://movies.indiatimes.com/Special_Features/25_Must_See_Bollywood_Movies/articleshow/msid-1250837,curpg-5.cms to http://movies.indiatimes.com/Special_Features/25_Must_See_Bollywood_Movies/articleshow/msid-1250837,curpg-5.cms
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120716180604/http://filmfareawards.indiatimes.com/articleshow/articleshow/368601.cms to http://filmfareawards.indiatimes.com/articleshow/articleshow/368601.cms
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119095100/http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=199&catName=MTk5Mw%3D%3D to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=199&catName=MTk5Mw==
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120709200607/http://filmfareawards.indiatimes.com/articleshow/368614.cms to http://filmfareawards.indiatimes.com/articleshow/368614.cms
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130107074858/http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=200 to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=200&catName=MTk5NA==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017072507/http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=198&catName=MTk5Mg== to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=198&catName=MTk5Mg==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310232744/http://jhalakdikhhlajaa.sify.com/judges/juhichawla/ to http://jhalakdikhhlajaa.sify.com/judges/juhichawla/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi there, can you please clarify this re-removal, which, I note, you didn't discuss after the content was restored. What specifically are you objecting to here? While some of the content, like her being the highest-paid during XYZ years, are a little questionable, there are a number of claims I'm not sure should really be in dispute:
#Do we doubt that she "made her acting debut in 1986 with Sultanat"?
#Do we doubt that she received public recognition for Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak by winning a debutante Filmfare award?
#Do we doubt that she's married to Jay Mehta?
#Do we doubt that she's co-owner of the Kolkata Knight Riders? That's sourced below in the article.
There are a number of other claims that seem reasonable to include. If she's won Filmfare Awards, for instance, shouldn't we mention what she won those for? Also there are at least two sources in the article that have noted her comic timing, but mention of that has been scrubbed. While some of the unsourced hyperbolic language about her being regarded as ___ maybe reads a little press release-y, but some of the content that was deleted is either sourced below, or reasonably believed and potentially could be sourced. For instance this seems fairly comprehensive. While I understand that sometimes challenging poorly sourced material is necessary, and while I'm very sensitive to Wikipedia articles being used for promotion, I think that deleting the bulk of the lead was a bit much. We've gone from trying to describe the breadth of Chawla's 36-year career in a few paragraphs, to summing it up in a single sentence. That seems very odd to me. I'm not reverting, because I don't particularly want to get into a content dispute, but I think there are some reconsiderations I would hope you might make. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the lead, the significant parts of which are sourced. Other than that, it includes essential information, all of which is sourced in the body, and it is an okay summary of the article; could be rewritten, but the article is well referenced, though that's another story anyway. I highly doubt the motives for removal are as cited by the user. Shahid • Talk2me 03:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of promotion, I chanced upon the Madhuri Dixit article, where other than the first sentence, the entire lead is unsourced, and had to clean up some excessive use of WP:PUFFERY and WP:FANCRUFT, incidentally by the same user who deleted the lead of the current article seemingly on WP:RS grounds. A talk page discussion started on that page, too. Shahid • Talk2me 04:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead deletion 

message: *
*Filmfare 1998
*Shahid • Talk2me 14:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources