Talk:Aishwarya Rai Bachchan/Archive 2

Controversies
Aishwarya Rai has been part of many such insignificant, forgettable and non-notable incidents. She has never been a controversial figure or something. It is by no means noteworthy, it adds no value to the article, it does not show anything nor does it highlight anything about her persona or image or whatever. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a controversy and was in media for a while their are no set standards for a controversy to be WORTHY of a mention, when it is reported it is worth it, those forgetteble controversies u are mentioning never made it to mediaAuityz (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not writing a biography to HIGHLIGHT HER PERSONA it is just a list of info abt who she is and what significant has happened in her life. Auityz (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So do have a read through WP:UNDUE - where it says: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." - and this is particularly highlighted in BLPs.
 * As for the "supercouple" claim - it is a total misinterpretation and nonsense. The source cited by the sockpuppet does not at all mention them as such. Make a google search - you will have no reliable sources mentioning them as a supercouple. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not a minor controversy she along with khan was in news for a fortnight because of this. "controversial figure", How often one gets into a controversy, u wanna say she has to be somebody like Paris Hilton, so we are going to add them. Supercouple refers to a couple which is a strong brand together, which the given sources clearly states. Auityz (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not mentioning my VIEW It is an incident which happened and made strong noise in media. Auityz (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recall saying you mentioned your view this time (surprisingly). It is non-notable. She has been part of many such minor "controversies" - adding only few for the sake of adding is silly and a violation of WP:POV under WP:UNDUE.
 * We don't need your definition of a "supercouple" - we need several reliable citations about her forming a supercouple with her husband. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dat ain't MY defination, their is a WP Page for it read it, hope you'll get the idea provided with a clear mind. Auityz (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just chipping in with what I found with a google search- I am not taking any sides here on whether to include or omit it

Like Bollwyood's super couples Shah Rukh and Gauri Khan, Abhishek Bachchan and fiancée Aishwarya Rai, and John Abraham and Bipasha Basu. [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1858526.cms It's London in spring time! ] trakesht (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Is there one more? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=44567 Bollywood Super Couple In Toronto! ]

Webwire seems to be a fairly heavily used news aggregator source in wikipedia[] trakesht (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Webwire is not a reliable source but never mind. Searches in leading sites such as Rediff show nothing (aishwarya abhishek supercouple site:rediff.com). But I shall find one in anewspaper so it's fine by me. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

one more mention in The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/holnus/009200908011821.htm trakesht (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't able to decipher that, could be a little more specific? Auityz (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just added a RELIABLE Source with word SUPERCOUPLE in it, provided by trakesht. Auityz (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"minor "controversies"" hmmm! What actually is a major one? Auityz (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I find that these controversies were already added and removed in the past. Read it again. Aishwarya Rai has been part of many such insignificant, forgettable and non-notable incidents. She has never been a controversial figure or something. It is by no means noteworthy, it adds no value to the article, it does not show anything nor does it highlight anything about her persona or image or whatever. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Shahid, you do not need to document every single minor mishap or incident that occurred in her life. It is supposed to be a summary of major events or moments that affected her life/career etc. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bride and P
What is the correct year of this film? The film's own article gives one date, and the Rai article gives that and another one.Kdammers (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's 2004. I'm editing this article. AyanP (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Ayan

Brands Endorsed by Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
Any one has information on this? Can we update her page on her endorsed brands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayurpc (talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we are not here to endorse brands, that is not notable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

i need help pleaes??
hellow, pleaes i need help ,the Aishwarya rai's awards and nominations page is missing a lot of awards and nominations that she received in her carrer and there are awards and honours she received in 2010 and i would like to add them with referancec prove them but every time i add them with the referancec they deleted and i dont know why. pleaes i need help and pleaes tell me what to do in order to make them appear like the other awards. thank you so much Farah-55 (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the general convention is to list only the two majors -- Filmfare and National Film Awards, not every award (except in the case of people who don't have the majors to their credit). &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

please reply??
hi, i understand your message to me but i have a question ,why the other actresses have all of the awards and nominations?? you can see rani and kajol and many actors and actress they have all of their awards and all of these awards are not a big major for example rani won the best actress at the Sansui Awards in 2003(and this award mentioned in her list)  and aishwarya rai won the best actress at Sansui Awards in 2002 but her award is not mentioned and their a lot of awards and nominations for aishwarya rai are not added. aishwarya rai was honoured in 2010 the GR8! Women awards for soical servise and international recognation and she won the NDTV Indian icon of the year award in the same year, both of them are major Success. pleaes i need help because aishwarya rai is a great actress that won alots of awards and nomintions that should be added thank you and i wish you help me Farah-55 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead source link
Hi editors, would like to notify you that the reference for the following line under the section International Media leads to a broken link, it should be repaired.
 * In 2005, Harpers and Queen's list of 10 Most beautiful women in the world ranked her at the 9th spot

94.226.139.104 (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from T.nischal, 8 July 2010
change AishwaryaRai.jpg to http://whatiexpect.in/index.php?option=com_ponygallery&func=watermark&id=6964&Itemid=68  or

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/wallpapers/1600x1200/a/aishwarya_rai_blue_eyes-1517.jpg  or

http://www.pinkvilla.com/files/imagecache/ContentPreview/headsh1.jpg

T.nischal (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: We have a free image, not going to replace with Fairuse image. Spigot Map  18:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Salman's denial
An article published by The Times of India reports in its title "Salman didn't hit Aish". I can use this very title in the Aishwarya Rai article and say, "Rai cited... In 2009, a TOI articles said Khan did not do it" if we take every work literally. Now, Khan's reply was not out of the moon, it was a direct reply to a question directed at him regarding rumours of his abusing Rai. He denied this. Period. This must be mentioned. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to you: The clause I changed is 'though Khan has denied this' to 'Khan has denied beating any women'. If you check the source, the quote I changed the clause to is much more accurate and congruent to what the source says. I removed the clause because leaving it in the sentence purports that Khan denied 3 things in addition to beating women.


 * That's the same - that's denial per se. So let's change it to: "In an article titled 'Salman didn't hit Aish!!' by The Times of India, Salman Khan has denied beating any woman." - that would too be precise, would it not? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then, that's what the source says and that's how I changed it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Though as "the most beautiful woman in the world", we should certainly have photos that fairly represent her. She looked very different in 'The Last Legion". -- Beardo (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.23.149.188, 20 February 2011
Aishwariya Rai

Recent changes
Raavanan and Raavan are practically the same film in different versions and the response was similar to both. Even if Raavanan is more successful (which is not mentioned in neither here nor its own article, to the extent of being clear enough), I don't think it is as much as the other mentioned films in the lead.

One thing that really made me laugh was the "most youngest person to receive a Padma Shri", which was sourced to the little-credible site "spicezee". So let me just tell you that this very year Kajol won the award, and she is 36, like Aish was. In 1985 Smita Patil won the award and she was less than thirty at the time. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sanjay started edit warring and his edits are unacceptable. The sources he is citing, which are not reliable enough (one of which is a fansite of Rai) do not support the claim that the movie (Raavanan) is a critical and commercial success. The first one by Sify does not really mean much as it just gushes over the film and does not support the claim in the lead. The second one (a fansite) contains an interview in which Aish does not even mention the film! Actually Aishwarya herself is not a reliable source, as any actor can gush over their films. Secondary sources must be added. And, most importantly, the lead should reflect the article.
 * Secondly, as for the Padma Shri record which Sanjay is so keen to add: spicezee is not a reliable source, it says she is the youngest person, and after I mentioned Smita Patil, he changed the statement saying she is "the second youngest", using the same source (which clearly cannot be taken at face value after such a mistake is found). Come on. This is not done. [[User:Shshshsh|<span sparlay some of her best assets: singing and dancing."

Outlook magazine: "Her performance is self-conscious and laboured. Despite crying buckets, she leaves you unmoved. She looks eternally ethereal, perfectly manicured with those eyes opened innocently wide. You never feel the strength she would have possessed to have borne it all. As for her Punjabi, it's the kind you'd hear in acting workshops."

I'll add more to see what's the average response to her work. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Rotten Tomatoes, the film has 29% of positive reviews. If it's not a critical failure, what is? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and hence the 'generally positive reviews'. You cannot please everyone. Also, it is a British-Indian film, so obviously the UK and Indian reviews matter, which were not taken into account in Rotten Tomatoes. The film got many 3/5 to 4/5 reviews, so I cannot seem to understand how you can totally overlook those reviews and write that the film got 'negative' reviews. While her performances got even lesser negative reviews, you make it 'mixed'? You quite seem to dislike her for reasons best known to you. Please do not bring that up into this. Sanjay911 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You better cite them here otherwise nothing of what you're saying here holds water. See the above reviews. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, here are the links for the positive reviews that I could find - BBC, Variety , Rediff , Hindustan Times , CNN-IBN , DNA , The Times Of India , Mid-Day , BollywoodHungama , Business Of Cinema , IndiaGlitz , SmashHits , NDTV , Channel 4 , TimeOut , ViewLondon , MouthShut.com , UpperStall.com , Galatta.com , BollySpice , ScreenDaily , Yahoo Movies , TimesOnline , NYSun , Canada.com , , PulpMovies . The link for Mid-day is not working, though I have the content. Also, there are other reviews where it called the movie "fair", though not "good", but they were not negative either. Also, I wanted to ask... if a film gets 50% on RottenTomatoes, does that mean it got "positive reviews from the critics"? Sanjay911 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay then


 * Most of the sources you cited are not reliable.
 * The mid-day and dnaindia links do not work.
 * NDTV does not at all have a review of the film.
 * Sukanya Verma from Rediff says, "Then again, there are times her body language is not in sync with the suffering of her character".
 * The Hindustan Times link is not even a film review! It's just an article about the film.
 * Upperstall says, "Provoked is a film of wasted chances."
 * Come on, this is far from being a positive reaction to her performance and the film. She got mixed reviews, and the film -- negative. Rotten Tomatoes cannot be ignored, and 3/5 is NOT a positive review. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "not reliable"? Other wiki articles carry links from the same sites like IndiaGlitz and BehindWoods (if you want evidence where Wiki articles have used them, I will be glad to show them to you). Even if we ignore the sources you have problems with, we have sources like TOI, BBC, Hindustan Times, DNA, Reddiff, CNN-IBN, BollywoodHungama, Yahoo, NYSun, Variety, Channel 4 etc. So there!


 * Yes, the Mid-Day link does not work as I said, but I have the saved review which I will furnish if needed. Yes, the DNA link I gave was a mistake, here is the actual link.


 * How is it possible for a big media house to not have a review for a big film? It sure must be a missing file. But again, I have the review which I will furnish if required.


 * Sukanya Verma's entire analysis - "Aishwarya Rai, on her part, is sincerity personified. No make-up, pretty clothes or even a smile adorn her naturally gorgeous disposition. But those eyes play their part. With changing circumstances her big blue-green brimming eyes look shocked, grieved, frightened, confused and relieved. Her effort to speak in fluent Punjabi is truly impressive. Then again, there 'are times' her body language is not in sync with the suffering of her character, something Mani Ratnam successfully got out of the actress in Guru. It is a sensitive portrayal, even if not an assertive one." She does say here and there Aishwarya missed a beat, but calls it a sincerity personified performance. She praised everything about her performance, but has a minor problem and that is where you point your finger at? Anyway, I never said it is a flawless performance. It received generally positive reviews and hence IT NEEDS TO BE SAID.


 * I couldn't find the Hindustan Times review. I searched reviews from every important reliable source, especially from the Indian media and I found every single review except the HT one. All I could find was that article, which clearly mentioned the positive reviews the film and her performance received.


 * Upper-stall at the same time calls the film "Watchable". It doesn't call the film perfect, it points out both the flaws and plus-points in the film and hence says "Watchable". No negative review will ask it's readers to watch the movie.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjay911 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the reviews have rated her performance as positive. Not all, but most of them. The film, yes, it received ratings such as 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4 out of 5. Also the reviews at RottenTomatoes. Even if we take all the reviews into consideration, the average is around 3/5. 1 means poor, 2 is fair, 3 is good, 4 is great, 5 is outstanding. But negative reviews means that people only had problems with film, which is wrong.

I removed your last paragraph which went in violation of WP:NPA. As for the discussion, I'm waiting for other editors to step in. Not going to reply to baseless statements like "I couldn't find". Whatever the consensus says will do for me, I'm not here to decide. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't 'attack' you. I just asked you to be neutral to everyone and not glorify posts of personalities you like and not trash posts of personalities you dislike. "I couldn't find" is because I really couldn't find the review. What about the positive reviews that I really could find? And being a masala film is not an excuse for a film receiving bad reviews and yet being potrayed in the Zinta article as if it received 'positive reviews', which is where I have a problem with. Acting as one to one article and differently to another article. If this is not being biased, what is? Sanjay911 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the Aishwarya Rai discussion page. Stick to the matter. Rotten Tomatoes has 29% of positive reviews. I agree that her performance was better received, but not to the exetent you are making it to look. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For one, I did say that the film received an average of 3/5. I nowhere said the film was outstanding. It received both positive and negative reviews (though less negative ones), including RottenTomatoes. That is the reason I'm saying the film received mixed reviews, NOT JUST NEGATIVE (which is being wrongly said in the article). And yes, her performance did receive over 80% positve reviews, even reviews which were not too impressed by the film appreciated Aishwarya for her performance  . One review from NYPost found the film poor but still noted her great acting abilities.

The Sukanya Verma review where you pinpointed a minor flaw in Rai's acting (her posture), but it also praised her dialogue delivery, the way she used her eyes in various situations, the way she personified Ahulwalia etc. Her review also called it "heartfelt and meaningful" movie but you wouldn't focus on that! Instead you focus on the UpperStall review where you focussed on the film being a "wasted oppurtunity", it said the film could've been better but didn't call it bad, instead called it watchable. The same review also says "Here is an actress who is in total control of her craft". That is the reason why I asked you to be neutral.

And no I have no interest in other pages whatsoever. I just cannot stand double standards. Otherwise I'm happy with Aishwarya Rai. I'm a fan and I'm being as neutral as possible, so you too, please try to do the needful. Her page is in a bad condition and needs improvement and expansion, which I will do step by step no matter what. Sanjay911 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever, edit whatever you want, this page is not owned by anybody, but it must adhere to policy, and therefore I will be watching your edits. I was one of those who expanded the article at the time, so sorry I did not let the article look like a sleazy magazine.
 * No, you are not trying to be as neutral as possible. Actually, many times you were adding false information. For one, just let me remind you how you falsely added Aishwarya's name to the list of 2010 MTV nominees. Also, the Tamil Filmfare award is a great example of that. You used another account (User:Schmuck17) to revert the page. So please do not speak about double standards and integrity until you prove it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I didn't change the Tamil Filmfare without evidence. I gave about five trusted sources right? The issue is still unresolved, so don't come to conclusions. Even Raavanan, but I was too busy then. I'm just waiting for some free time so that I can improve it without any bias unlike some other articles here. Btw, she indeed was nominated for MTV Movie awards. She made it into the Top 25 but couldn't make it into Top 5. I have evidence.  . I use two accounts at my convinience. Wiki never said it was wrong to do so. Did it? Also, I proved someone's double standards so let's not go deep into it. Btw, looking like a sleazy magazine is much better than looking like an A-grade magazine with full of crap. Sanjay911 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also please change it from "negative reviews" to "mixed reviews". Sanjay911 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I will not change it because it's incorrect. Most of the reviews for the film were negative, and there were hardly any uniformly positive reviews for it. It is Aishwarya who got mixed reviews (like she does for almost all her films), but I'm letting it be for now because most of the reviews were positive and until a broader number of opinions appears in the discussion.
 * How exactly did you prove someone else's double standards? Oh, and again you are citing some unreliable sources. And even if she entered the top 25, then why did you add her among the top 5? Huh! The Filmfare Tamil debate is over long ago, and it was proved that an act of vandalism is the cause of the widesread mistake. And yes, Wikipedia is against using multiple accounts (WP:SOCK), and you used another account just to contribute to your own edit war. And after your edits, the article did not look like a magazine only, but a fansite as well.
 * Anyway, I rest my case here until someone else enters the discussion. Until then, please be civil and do not keep edit warring. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I proved it the way you said 60% is NOT good for Rai while for Zinta 50% is considered positive. When I did mention it, you complained that I went off-topic. Why even get into that. The Priyanka, Kareena issue was enough to see who had double standards. 'She gets mixed reviews for all her films'... really? Didn't I already say you were not being neutral? You just proved it now. :) And most of the reviews were negative? What about the 25-odd reviews I mentioned? None of them were negative. Some said it was fair, some called it above average, some good and some even great. There were no uniformly positive reviews? I really wonder what these are, then  . There are more that I can bring up but unfortunately you will call them unreliable, while considering some silly sources like moviewallah.com for Jaan-e-mann. No bias at all. Of course. :) Yep, when I realized it was only Top 25, I did stop editing. And wiki clearly mentions "there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project". So, there! I'm not warring here. I'm not trying to do anything baselessly. I'm editing with enough sources. Heh right, as if the Preity Zinta page looks anything less than a fansite! ;) Sanjay911 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I said, "She gets mixed reviews for all her films" because that's a common fact. There have been few films for which she got universally positive reviews. The Indian media loves to hate her and dismiss her work. It's not my opinion, and I'm not happy about it. If I was to judge the article would have looked way different. Go some archives back and you will see how hard I fought to let the statement in the lead ("Often cited as the most beautiful") appear in the article. I was the one to add it and I was totally against its removal. So what would you say now? That I'm her fan? The fact is that I'm all for neutrality on any article (and the Kareena-Priyanka thing, I made the same edits on both articles). So the fact that you are against my edits only highlights the fact that you are a die-hard fan.
 * No, no, it's not 60%, it's 29%. There's a difference between 29% and 50% and when 29% are based on more than 30 reviews while 50% are based on less than 10 reviews, there's a huge difference, particularly because one is a foreign film and the other is Indian. Again, all the reviews you cited are hardly positive, very few of them are, actually, so do get your facts right. As said, most of your links come from unreliable sites, the ones which are reliable are either dead links or not reviews. The fact that you are mentioning another article instead of discussing what's relevant does not really hold water. Overall, I see no reason to prove further your act of vandalism on the MTV page - there are announced nominations and you just wanted to push your idol into the list. As for your use of a sock puppet, you used it to keep edit warring, and that's a fact (and that's why this account is blocked). That's not done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is 29% when only taking Rotten Tomatoes into account. Many other reviews which were not taken into account gave positive feedback and their average was 3/5, which is exactly 60%. You yourself said "3/5 is NOT positive". So when 60% is not positive how is 50% considered positive? 8 reviews are good enough to say it. The majority of Indian reviews of Jaan-e-mann gave the film 2.5/5 3/5 reviews, with some even giving worse reviews like this one . "3/5 is NOT positive", now that is wrong. It is called positive/encouraging if not overwhelmingly positive. Negative reviews as in every review trashed the movie. But that is not right, is it? But according to the article the film only received negative reviews. Now that is wrong and I want to correct that there were indeed critics who loved it and who received it well and accepted it despite the alleged 'flaws' some other reviewers had pointed out or had problems with! By the way, here is another 4/5 review of Provoked from The Indian Express that I didn't mention in one of my earliest posts . There have been only two dead links of the 25-odd reviews I mentioned. Even if we ignore them and also the 'unreliable SOURCES' that you suggest, there are at least 10-15 positive reviews from reliable sources like TOI, BBC, DNA, Variety, CNN-IBN etc. You cannot ignore them! The fact that I'm mentioning other articles is to tell how people are giving a different treatment to other articles. For Jaan-E-Mann, random sites like moviewalah.com are used as sources for reviews! Whereas popular websites like IndiaGlitz, BollywoodHungama, BusinessOfCinema, BehindWoods et al are considered dubious when used for Provoked? Plus the moviewalah.com link used in the Jaan-E-Mann page is dead. I saw you were part of that page, so I just wanted to point it out so that you can see it for yourself. About that MTV thing, I admit I wasn't aware of the fact that the nominations were limited to Top 5. And I thought Ash had made it. It was a mistake and I stopped doing it the moment I realized it. I know it is not an excuse worth listening but everyone makes mistakes. I did show you the proof that she was into Top 25 right? It wasn't baseless. Sanjay911 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep Jaan-E-Mann out of the discussion. I made some research and changed it from positive to mixed. I don't care much about this film (and never contributed to the page substantially at all) and see no reason to shove it here, as here we are discussing Provoked. If you find problems with other articles, this is not the place where to raise them. As said, saying 25-odd reviews does not help as my analysis clearly disproves this, and lifting 29 to 60 on your own will make no sense as it's just incorrect. As said, dnaindia, mid-day, NDTV do not work; HT is not even a review. Most of the reviews are average and not very encouraging so if you mix them with those mentioned on Rotten Tomatoes, maybe it will grow from 29 to 35, but nothing else. And that's why we can use "mostly negative", instead of just "negative". That's all. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I just found some more positive reviews of the film, . I couldn't find the review from another respected media house Telegraph India, but I did find this article . Do give it a read. Sanjay911 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * nowrunning and puremovies are not reliable sources. The Telegraph's is not an organised review. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I brought in Jaan-E-Mann into discussion because if the same rules that apply to Jaan-E-Mann apply to Provoked, then why is Provoked being given step-motherly treatment? You might not care about that film but the film was a part of Zinta's career right? And you DID include Jaan-E-Mann in your Zinta article and claimed the film received positive reviews? That too after doing months of research. Heh, proves how I wasn't wrong. I'm not raising my problems with other articles just for the heck of it. My only principle is be neutral to everyone. That's why I'm bringing up this Jaan-E-Mann into this again and again. Even you know it. Yes, HT one was not a review but the proof that the film indeed receive positive feedback both for Aishwarya and the film. Oh yes, unfortunately Mid-Day, NDTV links do not work. But I did correct my DNA link, check one of my previous posts. Why give you pain, let me post it again here . Most of the reviews are 'average'? Average is 2/5 not 3/5. 3/5 is good. 4/5 is great (Provoked did receive even some 4/5 reviews). I'm not lifting 29 to 60 on my own will. All these reviews plus the ones on RottenTomatoes will sum upto more than 50%, which can well be classified as 'mixed reactions'. Yes, I sat and calculated it. Along with the latest ones added. P.S. I still see that dead moviewalah.com link on the Jaan-E-Mann page. Just saying. Sanjay911 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion really starts annoying me. If you have a problem with Jaan-E-Mann, then go and discuss it on the Jaan-E-Mann talk page. Stop bringing up my work to the discussion. Most of your links are not valid. DNA still does work. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That is because I would want a contributor to remain neutral to all the articles. Remember the double standards I talked about? "Most of your links are not valid" - Please specify which ones are not valid. Yes, DNA link works. I cross checked from two other systems. "Some of them are dead" - Only two links are dead, but the number of reviews is still higher than 25. Scathing means 'severely critical'. No severely critical review will give more than a 1/5 rating to a film (if not less). Whereas the reviews I mentioned average to more than 3/5, some even being rated 4/5. So, there! Sanjay911 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have to take neutrality lessons from a die-hard fan who falsely added the name of their goddess into a list of nominees, knowing it's untrue. And someone who kept saying his goddess won an award which she never won despite the fact that people proved otherwise. And someone who created a now-blocked sock puppet. As for the film, it was a critical failure with some critics giving it more positive reviews. Period. I'm not going to reply to you again, wait for other editors to come here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wiki says comment on the content. Not on the contributor. I already justified with evidence why I added her name as a nominee and a winner of an award. As for the film, it had both positive and negative reactions, and hence it should be mentioned as 'Mixed Response'. And I'm not dying to get your reply. I couldn't be happier if you stay out of this. I cannot go on and on trying to convince someone to see the obvious when he is not even willing to. Oh, and checking the Zinta page tells me very well who the die-hard fan is. :) Sanjay911 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not staying out of the discussion at all, I have had my say, and my opinion is shared by another respected editor. The article is on my watchlist, I'm not going to leave this issue midway. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. That's the spirit. "I'm not going to reply to you again" - so I thought you were going to stay out of this. Always fun to have you on board. By the way, I have some major plans of expanding the article. Will you help me do it? Sanjay911 (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will. Since most of your edits are controversial, I think everything you want to add or expand is better checked before on the talk page. We can come together to conclusions and add proper info to the article. Teh result will be much more effective. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Controversial? Not really. At least not my very recent ones. Anyway, waiting for other editors so that I can prove them my point about Provoked, so that it's done once and for all. And thank you for promising to help. Your contributions to the Aishwarya Rai page may have many errors but still are valuable. You deserve the credit. Thank you. And yes I will put forward a word in the talk page before going to edit the article. Sanjay911 (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

29% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is usually a good indication that a film sucked/was not well received.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, but Rotten Tomatoes did not take all the reviews into account. A lot of UK and Indian reviews which gave positive reviews for the film were not considered. All I'm asking is to consider all the reviews present and that is when we can come to the conclusion that there were mixed reactions for the film. Thanks! Sanjay911 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just say, the film was generally poorly received, although some critics were more favorable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, sir! That would be good. But it was very much positively received at the Cannes Film Festival and also I had found about 25-odd good (From 3/5 to 4/5) reviews from reliable sources, so taking them all into account the verdict would be split, though tending more towards positive. I just got about 3 more positive reviews for the film which had appreciate the film, which I just posted to the user:Shshshsh. Sanjay911 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not true, most of your reviews are not very approving, and your "25-odd good reviews" claim is false, given most of the sources are unreliable, some of them are dead, and many of them are scathing. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was asked to drop by here. 29% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 34 reviews is absolutely clear, the film was poorly received by critics. Metacritic is another such indication where the film scores 39 out of 100. Of course, there can be few positive reviews as well, but if the majority rates it as poor, the verdict is "mostly negative"! And even the given 25-odd reviews (please leave out the references tag, when you quote them here!!) are not that positive, apart from the fact that I wouldn't consider all of them as good sources as some are not notable, some other have just some articles but no reviews, and again some other are based on user ratings/reviews not critics reviews (MouthShut.com?? Yahoo Movies?? Galatta has even been blacklisted on wikipedia!!) Did you actually go through all of them?? Instead of just looking at the rating, I would rather read through the reviews to find out whether it is favorable or not and it's obvious that the film was not well received by most critics. Regarding the reviews about Aishwarya's performance, from whatever I read they seem mostly positive, I have been coming across claims like "Watch it for Ash", "It's Aishwarya's film", "the film belongs to Aishwarya", "the real star is Aishwarya", "her work easily ranks amongst her best" etc. Again I didn't read all reviews in the world, so there might be some negative recpetions as well. Johannes003 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, it was not well received when we just take the 29% of Rotten Tomatoes into account. But what I'm saying is, the film also had several other reviews from trusted and very reliable sources which were not considered. A majority of those reviews which were not considered by Rotten Tomatoes hailed the film even if pointing out a few flaws. Yes, even if you discount websites such as Galatta.com (which according to you has been blacklisted by Wiki), there are reliable sources like TOI, DNA, BBC, Variety, CNN-IBN, Bollywood Hungama, NDTV, Hindustan Times, Channel 4, ViewLondon, New York Sun, Canada.com, Rediff, Indian Express, PulpMovies, ScreenDaily, TimesOnline, et al, which had given positive reviews. Even in the Metacritic link that you gave, of all the 17 reviews 3 are positive, 6 are negative but the majority of 8 are mixed! Only Hindustan Times is an article and not a review and that too, I cited, because I couldn't find a review from that site, since I've searched for reviews of the from all the notable media houses both in India and the UK (since it is primarily a UK film with an Indian background). Since you complain of some user ratings, I would suggest you go through the actual reviews which would make you see my point. When you look at all of them together, there have been positive reviews with 4/5 ratings, there have been negative reviews, but a majority have been mixed with a rating of 3/5. How can that be called as 'mostly negative'? For example, another Aishwarya film 'Shabd' didn't receive ratings as good as Provoked but still is cited as if it received average reviews from critics. What is the problem when it comes to Provoked then, where there have been abundant of mixed reactions when they are all summed up into one? Sanjay911 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just going through this list, you mention Bollywood Hungama as having a positive review. This is not right. The review is negative. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was talking about this Bollywood Hungama review. Even the other review you are talking about praised Rai's performance. By the way, you are yet to reply to the questions I asked below. If you do not reply I will take it as a go ahead. Thanks! Sanjay911 (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, asking you, what do you think is the "right" verdict of the film? What makes you to ignore the 34 reviews from Rotten Tomatoes? And what makes the review you mentioned positive? Is TOI's review positive? Is Variety's review entirely positive? Is Bollywood Hungama's review positive? Is the canada.com's review (what kind of site is this?) entirely positive? Is the Rediff review positive? ViewLondon says "the film is ultimately let down by some amateurish direction and a badly written script." And where are the reviews from NDTV, Hindustan Times, Indian Express and Times Online? I found 4 or 5 really positive reviews, which pale in front of 30-35 negative ones. I can understand if you say that Aishwarya's performance received positive reviews (I request to you to distinguish between reviews about the performances of the artists and reviews about the film!!), but speaking of the film I see many many more unfavorable reviews compared to favorable. Johannes003 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In no way, am I ignoring those 30-odd reviews from Rotten Tomatoes. I'm just asking you to also consider all the other reviews. Other than the 29% positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, most of the reviews have either been positive or mixed (though mostly positive). You asked "Is TOI's review positive?" - Well, of course it is. It praises the film and does not seem to have any problem with the apparent flaws that other reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes have a problem with. The TOI review recommends its readers to watch the film. Is it not positive enough? Variety's review only has a problem with one of the supporting actors' not being given enough background, but otherwise it calls it an old-style melodrama with a feel-good ending. It also mentions "strong reviews" from others. Yes, ViewLondon does mention its flaws, which is obvious with the given rating, but at the same time it recommends it to the viewers. Which reputed writer will call a terrible movie (as your 'negative reviews' suggest it to be) watchable? Yes, I can distunguish between Aishwarya's performance from the entire film. I'm not saying the film received mostly positive reactions like her performance did. You asked about what I think is the "right" verdict of the film? Apart from 29% positive reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, it received a lot of positive reviews and also a few mixed ones like the ViewLondon one, and taking all of them into account, it is right to say that the film received 'mixzed reviews' or 'average reviews' from the critics. Yes, the missing reviews that you asked... 4/5 review by Indian Express and a 3/5 review by TimesOnline. As I said earlier, there was no review available from Hindustan Times, but there is this news report which confirms the positive reviews that the film had received. If we sum all these reviews up, the verdict can only be termed as 'mixed'. And that's all I'm asking for. Thank you. Sanjay911 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe list the reviews here and we can weight them up?♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Spent some more time researching on this and this is my inference - There are 34 reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes, out of which only 26 reviews' links work. There are 5 negative reviews, from Village Voice, SlantMagazine, NYPost,ReelingReviews and SFGate. About 12 mixed/average reviews from NYTimeOut, About.com, Boston.com, AustinChronicle, Movie-Views, Flickfilosopher, PopMatters, EW, ReelingReviews, MurphysMovieReviews, ViewLondon, NYTimes and Chicago Reader. 9 positive reviews from WBAI, EurWeb, TimeOut, BBC, Spirtuality and Practice, GreenCine, TV Guide, Variety, NYDailyNews. 5 negative, 9 positive and 12 average. The mixed reactions are obvious. And this is only about Rotten Tomatoes, which did not even consider a single Indian review despite it being an Indian film. Most of the Indian reviews are very positive. Here are all I could find - Rediff, CNN-IBN, DNA, Times Of India, Bollywood Hungama, ScreenDaily, TimesOnline, NYSun, PulpMovies, Indian Express, Channel 4, Canada.com 1 and Canada.com 2. Mixed ones - Upper-stall. Sanjay911 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that some links on Rotten Tomatoes do not work does not matter because they already appear there for all to see. I'm interested to know why, for one, you did not include in your list of Indian reviews Taran Adarsh's review on Bollywood Hungama, which is not positive at all. I find it funny that you cite sources like puplmovies.com. Anyway, you just mispresent much of the info given and choose what is more convenient to you, which is quite clear. Another example: you label the Austin Chronicle review a mixed one. Well, the review is rated 2/5 and says, "What should have turned out as a terrific movie about the crime of spousal abuse has instead received the equivalent of a ham-handed molestation by director Mundhra".
 * I'm in agreement with Dr. Blofeld and Johannes003. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  07:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the reviews that do not even appear at Rotten Tomatoes can be accepted, then why cannot the Hindustan Times report too be considered, which clearly specified the greatly positive reviews that the film received? I already included one review by Subhash K. Jha of the same Bollywood Hungama. So, there! Even if you add Taran Adarsh's article, there is no harm done. Because that is probably the *ONLY* negative review received in India, while most of the other have been positive ones. Austin Chronicle review rated the film as 2/5. 2/5 is a rating given to an average film. And I'm not the only one saying that. Even MetaCritic calls the review a mixed one, as anyone with knowledge about ratings would. The review says it couldn't be a terrific movie. Exactly. But they didn't call it terrible either. 2/5 rating and MetaCritic calling it a mixed review says it all. Pulpmovies is the same site which is considered authentic and reliable by many other Wiki articles on movies. For example, check the movie page of Uptown. It takes quotes from Pulpmovies.com. Just an example. Oh, and Johannes003 calls Canada.com "what kind of site is this", whereas you yourself have used *THE SAME EXACT WEBSITE* for praising one of Preity Zinta's movies/performances (Heaven on Earth to be precise). This was the same double standards that I was talking about.


 * The film received so many positive reviews from Indian and UK critics. And it is a UK-Indian film! Even considering all the other reviews, a massive majority of them are mixed as I specified in the above reply along with the links.


 * Another example of different treatment given to Aishwarya Rai and Preity Zinta, whose movies Provoked and Heaven on Earth (respectively) are very similar, received similar ratings, with the latter receiving even more negative/mixed reviews, is - Whereas in Zinta's page, there is no mention to the mixed/negative reviews that the film met with, but there is a mention of Rai's Provoked meeting with (apparently) negative reviews. And shockingly enough, even Rai's performance was written off as being recieved with mixed reviews. It wasn't changed until I fought for it. How unfair is that! Sanjay911 (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're blowing everything out of proportion. So what if pulpmovies is used in Uptown? Does it mean it's right?! Then please go and see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I never said a word about canada.com, but please do show me where exactly canada.com is mentioned on either Preity Zinta or Heaven on Earth. And please do not compare the two movies or performances because this makes for a feeble discussion. Just a glance at Rotten Tomatoes shows a 67% rating which is far better. The movie was nominated for top honours in Canada and at some film festivals. Zinta's performance earned her a prestigious honour at the Chicago International Film Festival and a nomination for best actress at the Genie Awards (Canada's Oscars) (note, these are real awards, not ones that I made up!). And yet, on the film article it is clearly stated that the film received mixed reviews. Urrghh, your attitude is most disheartening. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. Pulpmovies wasn't just used for Uptown, it is being used by Lust for Vengeance, Dreamscape, Cookies & Cream, et al. You never said a word about Canada.com. True. But you did say "I'm in agreement with Johannes003", who had problems with that site. That only means Johannes003 had a problem with the site and you agreed with him. Whereas you yourself used a Canada.com link in the Zinta page (Check her discussion page, the first review under the bunch of reviews under Heaven on Earth. And please stay with the topic. We were talking about Heaven on Earth, the film, not Zinta's performance. Hahahaha, wow. And what a turn around?! Weren't you the same one who said there is a huge difference between a film with less than 10 reviews and the one with more than 30 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes? But then here you go again, 67% rating is on the basis of *just* 6 reviews. You yourself ruled out comparisions earlier, but now are contradicting yourself just because the rating conviniently supports your thesis. If you really were the same man who said that there is a huge difference between the former comparision, how can you compare the latter one and call it "far better". Take one stand please. Oh, and since you mentioned film festivals, Provoked too was welcomed with high acclaim and applause at different international film festivals like Cannes, IFFI, etc.


 * Oh, you have the "mixed reviews" thing on the movie page, then why not on the actress' page? Btw, I did some research on Heaven On Earth... and this is what I found out... 1.5/5 review from Bollywood Hungama (Provoked was the same), 2/5 from Rediff (Rediff gave Provoked a 3/5), 2/5 from TOI (No rating available for Provoked but the same TOI gave a much more positive review for Provoked), 1.5/5 review for Heaven on Earth from Hindustan Times (While there is no formal review available from HT, the same publication had an article written with the titled "Provoked - A winner for Ash"). CNN-IBN gave a 2/5 rating to Heaven on Earth. The same reviewer from the same mediahouse, Rajeev Masand gave a 3/5 to Provoked. Reuters called Zinta's film "stark and unsettled". No review was available for Provoked from Reuters though. DNA on Heaven on Earth - "A good script gone awry" 2/5. The same publication gave a much better, 3/5 rating to Provoked. Sify.com gave a 2.5/5 rating to Heaven on Earth. A direct quote from the review - "If one were to compare Videsh with Provoked, one would have to admit that Deepa Mehta’s take on this very prevalent social evil is *feebler*. Bhardwaj is well cast as the chauvinistic wife-beater. However, Mehta is unable to do justice to such a complex story which makes the final Sita like agni-pariksha appear absurd rather than thought-provoking. Not for the impatient." Also, Sify gave a much better review for Provoked. The Indian Express endorses the 1.5/5 review given by Taran Adarsh, where as the same Indian Express gave Provoked a 4/5 rating! Mid-Day calls Zinta's film one of Deepa Mehta's worst films ever and gives it a 1/5 rating. Provoked's review wasn't available for Mid-day but surely, even the worst review of Provoked had better ratings than this one. Indya.com gives a 1.5/5 review to Heaven on Earth, where as it gives a thumbs up to Provoked. On every scale Provoked scores better than Heaven on Earth. Yet you say Heaven on Earth gets mixed reviews, while Provoked gets negative reviews? Whereas actually, Provoked got much better reviews? That is being intellectually dishonest. Sanjay911 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, the fact that it is used in other articles does not make it acceptable. I told you, "just a glance" at Rotten Tomatoes showed 67%. While seeing the section on Heaven on Earth, it also says, "In India the film generated little notice or discussion". Now I added that it received mostly negative reviews, if that makes you happy. You also conveniently mentioned only the negative reviews of Heaven on Earth, ignoring the many positive reviews it received abroad, its reception at film festivals, the awards and nomiantions it got, but I'm not going to cite here anything because I don't think it's relevant. Both you and I know how well the films worked for both Zinta and Rai, and you would never go on to compare the performances because you know which one was more successful. Well, I don't think it matters that much. Anyway, this page is not intended for comparisons, but an individual discussion about Provoked. Welcome to the Aishwarya Rai talk page. So far you have proved nothing. A few good reviews mean nothing. I am not willing to go on with this. As I said earlier, I leave it for others. Blofeld's suggestion is perhaps the best solution.  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not blacklisted on Wiki. Other users and wiki pages find the site reliable and use it too. If you don't find it reliable, that's not my problem. I'm not here to please you. At least give a valid reason why should the site not be trusted. If you have a point I shall look into it. And why would I be happy if you added something to Heaven on Earth's page? You sound as if you did the edit only because I'm complaining - not because you felt the need for it. By the way, I didn't "convinienty mention negative reviews". Check out all the Indian reviews that Heaven on Earth got. The overall rating is 1.9/5.0. 2/5 is average. 3/5 is good. Hence it clearly says Heaven on Earth got below average ratings. The same site for Provoked gives it an overall rating of 3.0/5.0 - A clear indication that it is a good film. Since you are complaining that I did not cite positive reviews - how many positive reviews did the film get? Very very few in comparision to the negative/mixed ones it received. "Both you and I know" - Please stop beating around the bush. Come to the point. If it is a fact, why be afraid to say it? I very well know this is the Aishwarya Rai page. I'm getting Zinta into it because it is being managed by a Zinta fanatic. And, I, being a true blue Ash fan - will not take any bias towards any of them. If a certain aspect is right, then it should be right for both of them... i.e., the same rules should apply to both. There should not be a double standard the way you did it with Kareena and Priyanka. (Does it ring a bell yet?).


 * Hmm... coming back, you say Heaven on Earth got mixed reactions with mostly negative reviews from India. Yeah right, then why didn't you write it for Provoked as "It got mixed reactions abroad with mostly positive reviews from India"?. One more point. The fact that Heaven on Earth received a lot of negative reviews is not specified on Zinta's page. Whereas for Rai, even though her film received a lot of positive and mixed reactions, and much fewer negative reactions, it is written that her film received "NEGATIVE reviews" on her page. The question is not WHY (as if the answer is not obvious already). There is no question actually. Just be neutral to both. Sanjay911 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think there was a double standard on Kareena and Priyanka, then prove it and cite it - I did the exact edits on both pages. If you cannot prove it, then I suggest you to stop speculating because you're ridiculing yourself. Here are the diffs on both Priyanka and Kareena. So?
 * I like it that you call me a Zinta fanatic, while your edits (adding false awards and nominations and adding some gushing fan-led "information", and also using am unauthorised sock puppet. Have you already forgot MTV and Filmfare South and this blocked account of yours?? Huh!) prove that the true fanatic here is not me.
 * As for my contributions on Wikipedia, my work on Wikipedia is broad - I have written numerous articles and expaded many of them throughout the last three and a half years. I do not edit one particular article and my edits do not revolve around one person just to glorify his/her great stature. Also, I'm warning you for the last time to stop personally attacking me else you will have to face the consequences at the admin boards.
 * Again, this is not the Heaven on Earth page, have a problem with HOE? Go and discuss it on the its own page. I personally have hardly edited it in the last year, so your claims do not really hold water. And BTW, you should understand that no one really owns this or any other page.
 * Speaking of Provoked, I think it can be added that the film "received better reviews in India", if it makes you that happy. And besides that, if the film was mainly notable in Rai's career for her performance-oriented turn, then is the critical response it got as important? Has anyone ever obligated you to mention its critical reception on her page? You don't have to mention it for every single film. There's also such thing called common sense. If you believe it can be removed from her page, then I personally will support it. Say no more. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By your friend Bollyjeff, "It seems to me that for consistency sake, the articles should be treated the same. If you really believed that your edit on Priyanka was right, then I would think that you should agree with what the other guy did on Kareena, and not take 'Dreamz side. Likewise, if you think the way it is on Kareena is okay, then put it back that way on Priyanka too. I would really like to see it the same way on both articles." And this is what I stand by.


 * Yes, I did create another account, which has been blocked for good. So WHAT now? I confess I made a mistake, just like most of the newbies who are not aware of the rules would. And Filmfare and MTV ones I didn't do without evidence. They were not baseless. I'm sure you've been through the Please do not bite the newcomers page. Just go through it again. Everybody makes mistakes. What is your point in digging the past again and again? I agree I made mistakes but that was during my earlier days of my stay at Wiki. I've understood it much better now and keep learning more and more as days pass.


 * "I do not edit one particular article and my edits do not revolve around one person just to glorify his/her great stature" - Wrong. Just check Zinta's page. And of all the articles you've apparently written or exapnded, why is only Zinta's page an FA? Come on! It's obvious. When have I personally 'attacked'(!) you? It has never been personal. I do not even know who you are. I didn't say anything wrong without valid proof. And I still defend my claims. You are welcome to report me if you really think I 'personally' attacked you.


 * I spoke in length about Heaven on Earth because you were giving different treatments to that and Provoked. Hence I did the research and made it change from 'mixed' to 'mostly negative in India'.


 * "There's also such thing called common sense." - And you are the same one who accuses me of "personal attacks". What irony! Yes, I did not know that it wasn't mandatory to mention critical reception for a film. I'm a newbie and I (like any other human being) take time in learning things. But may be not. May be I'm slow. May be I'm dumb. May be I really do not have common sense. May be I do not possess the great wisdom that you do. *OR* may be you are wrong. You are free to call me names. I do not get offended by people I barely know or trust. Anyway, I believe the film received mixed reviews abroad and mostly positive reviews in India. If you will not let me change that, remove details about the reception the film got. Or may be I will do it myself. Thanks! Sanjay911 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever Bollyjeff said about what he expected me to do is what I actually did. Go to him and ask him - and I cited the diffs, not because I feel I have to justify anything to you, but just because you are wrong and are unable to accept that because you somehow insist on seeing me as the bad guy. And the reason? Because among many other things I've done, I worked on the Zinta article and made it into an FA along with other editors, while Aishwarya Rai isn't. You're probably the only person on Wikipedia who blames another editor for contributing to an FA! I've always been against POV and all for neutrality. You say I've not done much except working on this FA. I could just start listing articles I worked on and expanded, but do you really think your opinion matters to me that much? After getting so much appreciation from some of Wikipedia's best editors, do you think I will take your baseless statements and unseemly accusations at face value? Well, you are wrong. Being such a big fan, you would never appreciate my efforts on this very page. In such discussions such as this and this, I fought to have that title at the top of the page. Now would you call me an Aish fan or what? Huh! It's because of edits like yours that I never managed to raise the standard of this and other such articles. Trust me, you are from being the first fan I have to deal with. I would have long ago tried to help you familiarise yourself with the WP process, but your fan-led attitude is most disheartening and it's impossible to collaborate with you as you just want to convince others that Mrs. Rai is the best in the world and is perfect in everything she does. I'm here to not let it happen, sorry to say that.
 * As for the article, either way is fine by me. Let me know which one you think is better and we'll consult other editors and close this tiresome discussion once and for all. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, should we mention that Aish was rated the second-worst actress for her performance in the film? Just kidding. Which review would best suit here according to you, guys? I personally think it's better without a review as of now. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The comment above you made is so ridiculous that it does not even hold water - so what, at least it confirms your negativity towards Rai. The fact that the poll is about Bollywood movies and yet Provoked, a non-Bollywood movie, is considered is one goof-up. Second is your endorsing it, even if as a joke which makes it look stupid. Someone who doesn't believe a Hindustan Times report because it is not a review but brings up some crazy poll based on user ratings, where 90% of the people participating in the poll do not have a problem with Rai's performance... and to even consider it - I draw the line here. That's why I ask you to take ONE stand. Anyway, to each his own. Sanjay911 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh well you have so proved who I am dealing here with. You just cited so many Indian reviews and so many times called it an Indian movie and now you're saying it isn't valid because the movie is non-Bollywood?? This so-called claim "your negativity towards" is a cheap accusation used by fans who cannot see criticism directed towards their idols, and I saw this so many times here that I'm no longer surprised. As for the comment itself, you did ignore my note "Just kidding" because you took this reference so close to heart that you probably could not read further. Your insults are quite laughable and I'm not surprised that you completely ignored my previous post. Well, you clearly had nothing to say. Anyway. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh!!! There are Indian critics reviewing Hollywood films every week. Does that make them Bollywood movies? A non-Bollywood film will be a non-Bollywood film. So putting it among Bollywood movie list is obviously stupid. Please define a "cheap accusation" for me. You made a cheap joke out of something serious, which was uncalled for. Your attitude towards her movies, performances etc. is not good/negative. As her fan, I wouldn't find it funny and I just said it clearly to you. At least I don't expect an "experienced" and "respected" editor to go with such ridiculous claims. I can take criticism towards my "idol". That is welcome. But a cheap joke? NOT. Adding a "Just Kidding" would not undo it. If my 'insults' (if they really are insults) are so laughable, where is the need to be offended about it? You either laugh it off or get offended. Not both. Period.


 * Oh, and I ignored your previous post because your next post was so ridiculous that I thought it was a waste to drag an already tiresome discussion. Anyway, since you asked for it, here you go - "You're probably the only person on Wikipedia who blames another editor for contributing to an FA!" - Mincing words. Why? You had said - "my edits do not revolve around one person just to glorify his/her great stature" and that you treat all articles the same. Wrong. You made Zinta an FA because she is your idol. Rai's page is so dead that Abhinay Deo's Game is called one of her upcoming projects... while it has been more than a year since she has walked out of the project. Some other actress replaced her and even the film has been released. We can still see it as one of her upcoming projects, along with Vishal Bhardwaj's film, which is not happening either. Also, the year her wax statue had been waxed was in 2004. But it is shown as 2007. More faults can be found. Just goes to show there hasn't been enough research done. "It's because of edits like yours that I never managed to raise the standard of this and other such articles" - Really? So if you write accurate information regarding dates and her upcoming films people will stop you from doing it? Come on! "you just want to convince others that Mrs. Rai is the best in the world and is perfect in everything she does" - Really now. Did I EVER say that? And YOU accuse ME of "baseless statements and unseemly accusations". How ironic! Good night. Sanjay911 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No no, I made Zinta an FA because I wanted to expand it. She is not my idol. Mrs Aish is your idol, and your vandalism, POV editing, addition of false awards, creation of unauthorised accounts - all just to glorify her - are just proof to that. And not to forget your reaction here to the link I cited - you just took it as a personal offense! :) And yes, you do try to see me as 'the bad guy' - just like you ignored the links of archived discusssions on this page which I cited, because you did not really want to take your words back. As I said, whatever you said about my editing is of least interest to me (just because you are of least interest to me) so no explanations are going to be given. I thought to add it as a joke, but now I'll make some more reasearch on this stuff. As of now, no review is needed on the page. And I'm done here, as you said, let's not waste our time on an already tiresome discussion. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  03:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * She indeed is your idol and your obsession with her is clear with you making only her article an FA. Also, you give a different treatment to Zinta and her films whereas you have this strong dislike/disrespect for Rai, which obviously mirrored on her page. I've already given my explanation regarding the mistakes I made earlier. As a newcomer I wasn't aware of those rules, and even Wiki supports me on this. You picking on the same thing again and again is weird, because I've already accepted the mistakes, unlike you. Nevermind anyway. Let me make it clear to you once and for all - I have no interest whatsoever in a flop actress like Zinta. I'm comparing her page to Rai's page because I believe the same treatment should be given to both. When it's not being implemented, I will obviously raise my doubts. If you are so annoyed by my questions, just stay out of this. If you want to make this a better place, try forgetting your likes and dislikes for actors and try presenting stuff on her page without a particular POV. I don't try to see you as the bad guy or whatever. I just try to see your point, I don't care about the rest. Ohh, even you ignored many more points I made contrary to yours previously, which you conviniently chose to skip. I'm not cribbing about it though. It just makes me smile! :) Why is there "no review" needed on the page now? Since the reactions to her performance have been mostly positive, the review which represents her performance should also be likewise. Let me add a line about her performance from a trusted critic and then we shall see if someone else has problems with it. What say? Sanjay911 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, you are telling me who my idol is? Sorry to tell you, I have no idols. But one thing is clear - Mrs Aish is your idol, and your vandalism, POV editing, addition of false awards (a false MTV award nomination, a false Filmfare Award win), creation of unauthorised accounts to contribute to an edit war - all just to glorify her - are just proof to that. And not to forget your reaction here to the link I cited, which you took as a personal offense! :) And once again, this claim of yours that someone "dislikes" or "disrespects" her here is one usually made by die-hard fans. I will repeat it everytime you come up with baseless accusations. Anyway, you are the last person to assess my work, I have been given enough appreciation from great editors whose opinions actually matter and frankly, you are the last person whose opinion of my work I care about, but well, enough of that, and let's for once get back to the issue.
 * Back to the issue. When you say "mostly positive", which is yet to be thoroughly checked, the review should be at least more constructive than "she is stunning". And if it's a non-Bollywood film (you said it, not me) and there are so many western reviews, then it can be more effective. I don't think as of now there is a need for it, particularly when the issue is so controversial. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, my sincere suggestion would be to involve a bigger group in this discussion; Probably the editors who have worked on this article before. Gnanapiti (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very useful suggestion. It will be a welcome change to actually discuss it with some neutral folks. Thank you. :) Sanjay911 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

L'Oreal Association
In the article, it has been falsely reported that Aishwarya was signed as the L'Oreal ambassador in 2005. Check this article in Tribune India. The article states the same information but it was reported in April 2003.

Mumbai, April 21 Aishwarya Rai is the new brand ambassador of L’Oreal Paris, the flagship brand of the L’Oreal group. The former Miss World joins the L’Oreal Paris dream team, which includes actress and models representing the multiple facets of beauty — Laetitia Casta, Andie MacDowell, Milla Jovovich, Noemie Lenoir, Virginie Ledoyen, Agbani Darego, Gong Li and Catharine Deneuve.

“I am absolutely delighted and very excited to be associated with L’Oreal Paris. The brand’s tag line ‘because you’re worth it’ has always been very close to my heart,’’ Aishwarya was quoted as saying in a release issued by L’Oreal Paris here.

The actress will represent L’Oreal’s products for skin care, hair colour and other cosmetics. UNI

So please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjay911 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Corrected. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better if it was in order of date? Like, for example, her being on the TIME influential people list in 2004 is mentioned before she was on the TIME cover, which actually happened in 2003. Also, her L'Oreal association in 2003 being cropped up in between 2004 and 2005 makes no sense at all. It requires a better write-up. Also an expanded one with quotes. Will you be able to do it? Sanjay911 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Notes on Aishwarya's filmography
Shouldn't it be mentioned regarding what languages her films were dubbed into, and their titles under 'Notes' in her filmography? I think that would bring more clarity into her filmography a la the Preity Zinta article. What say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjay911 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't think it's that big a deal, but I don't mind this addition. I actually hope it does not make the table too loaded with titles. She has appeared in quite a few regional movies. Do you have the titles? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it matters and hence added it. I edited it. The table doesn't appear too loaded for me though. Check if it's okay for you. Sanjay911 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought you were talking about adding the Hindi titles, because most of her films are in Hindi. After all, there are so many languages, and films get dubbed into many different languages in and outside of india, so I don't know how effective it is and if it really contributes to the article. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, since she has done movies in Hindi, English, Bengali, Tamil and Telugu, and her most of her dubbed movies have been really popular, I thought it might be easy for people trying to find the titles of her dubbed movies. If it looks so dirty, you are free to undo it. Sanjay911 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will consult someone at WP:BLP actors first. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent lead edits
To Sanjay's request, "do check Madhuri's page" - I do not have to do it, and this page is not a format to other pages, so I again refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Even if I did look at it (assuming that the page was good enough to take example from), that would make no sense. Rai is not Dixit and Dixit is not Rai, so kindly stop coming with the assumption that Rai is equal to every other actor or actress and should be described the same (actually, trying some originality would not hurt). Dixit is recognised as one of the finest dancers ever in Hindi cinema, and that's something that is said in almost every biography or article about her. At her start, she was actually known more for her dance numbers and hit songs rather than her acting performances. AND, most importantly, she is a professionally trained dancer, accomplished in Kathak, and that's actually her initial semi-profession.

As for the other claim that she is one of Indian cinema's leading actresses, well that's funny. She has appeared in 5 films in the Tamil language, some of them did well but that does not make her leading 'there'. She may be famous and popular in all India, but that does not make her leading. Her only Bengali film is Chokher Bali, which was acclaimed and had her in probably one of her best performances (IMO), but that's just one film. And Telugu - she did only one film - Ravoyi Chandamama - in which she had a mere special appearance. Say Sridevi and that's one of the few actresses to have ever achieved almost equal fame in each of the main regional film industries in India. You wouldn't go on to call her one of the leading actresses in the Hollywood because she played character roles in mainstream movies there, right? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: There's a difference between being a leading actress in a film, and being a leading actress in an industry. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You do not have to do it, I just gave you an example. The article clearly states Aishwarya is one of the best dancers in the industry. There are others who say so too. And hence that deserves to be said. When I try originality, you revert my edits calling them baseless. That is the reason I always cite an example of the same being used in another article. It is not my problem if Dixit was known more for her dance numbers than her acting roles. May be she is not as good an actress as she is as a dancer. And most importantly too, Aishwarya is also a trained classical dancer and has had a lot of great dance numbers. Rai is the favourite dancer of almost every reputed choreographer, right from Saroj Khan to Shiamak Davar to Longinus Fernandes.

Aishwarya appeared in 5 Tamil films. Four of them were massive commercial superhits. The other one, Iruvar, won National awards and a lot of critical acclaim - also hailed as the best Tamil film in the past 25 years. Yeah, the Telugu appearance was for a song. The Bengali film Chokher Bali was a huge critical and commercial success too. Her filmography in the regional cinema has been flawless. "A leading actress in Indian cinema" - just means she is the lead actress in most of the movies she does. Just to tell you though, she started her career in regional cinema, she did two regional films even last year. Plus recently she has signed another Bengali film with her Chokher Bali director Rituparno Ghosh. She has done over 5 English movies. How can one call her just a leading Bollywood actress? Btw, before I edited it yesterday, it was mentioned "Indian film industry" and not Bollywood. Wonder what made you change your mind! However, I'm quite sure you will not agree to any of the facts I've stated. No issues. I would go with Gnanapiti's suggestion - "My sincere suggestion would be to involve a bigger group in this discussion; Probably the editors who have worked on this article before." Sanjay911 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I already said whatever I had to say in the above message. No one is opposing to having a positive commentary about her dancing skills, but I'm against gushing praise. She's no Madhuri and their stature and abilities strictly as dancers are different and differently received (also Madhuri was professionally trained, so she can be called accomplished) so kindly stop comparing them. Mentioning that she is recognised for her dance is more than enough, and it's also not specifically discussed in the article.
 * I did not notice this misleading statement before. A "leading" person can be "leading" in any profession - it means he's successful in it. A leading critic is a critic whose reviews are often read and anticipated by moviegoers, a leading pop singer is a singer who is one of the leading singers of popular music. Check the dictionary to see that it's not used to refer only to leading actors within a film. In the article, it is specifically said that she is a leading actress of an industry, while she is a leading actress in Hindi cinema, she is not a leading actress in Indian cinema. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That was not 'gushing praise'. I just wrote what the source quoted. She's no Madhuri. Correct. But Madhuri is no Aishwarya either. I've already mentioned, Aishwarya is also a well trained classical dancer. Every top choreographer in the country right from Prabhu Deva, Terence Lewis, Longinus Fernandes, Saroj Khan, and so many more acknowledge that she is one of the best dancers. Even professional classical dancers like Priyadarsini Govind thinks Aishwarya is a terrific dancer. Irony, she doesn't even mention Madhuri. Also, Aish has always been in the best Bollywood dancers ever lists. In fact, Hindi cinema's most popular song of the past few decades is Kajra Re (again Ash's dance song). Plus she has had numerous great, superhit songs like Nimbooda, Taal se Taal Mila, Dola Re, Ishq Kamina, Crazy Kiya Re, Barso Re and many more. I'm not calling her THE best dancer ever. Only that she has always been considered one of the best dancers of Indian cinema. And I don't think it is "gushing praise" because it is just not me who is saying it, but the media, the reputed choreographers and professional dancers and the public also who are saying the same! So if those people, media say it for Dixit it becomes a fact, and if the same people and the same media cite the same for Rai it becomes a "gushing praise"? Wow, that is being really neutral.
 * "A leading critic is a critic whose reviews are often read and anticipated by moviegoers" - Exactly. And I call her leading because she is one of the most popular Indian actresses down South too. Moviegoers anticipate her work, hence she is the highest paid actress. She charges more for a Tamil film than most of the Tamil heroes... if that is not "leading", what is? Sanjay911 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Debates are the last thing I want to be involved with right now, but I do know that Indian cinema articles have a tendency to glorify the actors they discuss.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then Madhuri Dixit also comes under this. If she can be spared, so can everyone else. Please change Dixit's "she is one of the most accomplished dancers" to "she was recognized for her dancing skills", then I have no problem. Because I believe in being neutral. If one actor is being glorified, the rest did not do any crime. If it is allowed for one, it is allowed for the rest too. Sanjay911 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, not again. Stop with this tiresome fanaticism. How long will you keep this most disheartening attitude of yours? Do you want this article improved or not? So, others think she is a terrific dancer. I also think so, I was mesmerised by her beauty in Devdas and thought she nailed the part in terms of both acting and dancing (though my opinion means nothing), but why do you think she should be given the same description as someone who is considered as one of the best dancers ever and who was at some point primarily acknowledged for just that? They've been given very different reactions to their work as dancers. Why do you think Rai is equal to every other actress in terms of her abilities and the response she gets? Will you now say, "if Meryl Streep can be called so and so, so can Aish"? No you won't - because they're two different women who get different recognition.
 * And that mid-day article does not say she was trained, it says that she and Esha Deol "know" classical dance, and no one is denying that. I'm actually in support of mentioning that, but not in such a gushing way, why are you so keen on using superlatives all the time? And please understand that copying lines does not give much to the article. Also, the article actually starts with Madhuri Dixit. You just cannot even try to look beyond Aish.
 * Yeh, making 5 Tamil films does not make her a leading actress in the industry, especially considering the fact that there are plenty of regional film industries in India (Kannada, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, etc.). There are many actors who are popular and famous all over India, and she may be one of them, but her work is primarily in one film industry, and that's where she is a top star. She has also appeared in movies outside of India (unfortunately, without much success), but it does not make her a leading Hollywood or UK actress.
 * I'm ready to wait for other editors to participate in this discussion. Until then, the addition of your own POV is unacceptable. I'm not going to let it turn into another talk page fight. If this continues, the article will fail GA, which is just sad. I actually started expanding it a few days ago to make it pass. And I want to do more, so I am not going to let another chain of unconstructive messages happen again. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not just writing crap, am I? I have reliable sources. I'm not talking baselessly (like the time when you accused me of using unreliable sources for Pink Panther 2 thingy). I want this article improved - most definitely. But not in a way that would make her look inferior to people when she really is not. I never said Madhuri is not a good dancer. She is a great dancer. Just because someone is a great dancer, why cannot others be great dancers too? I want the same description because she really is counted as one of the best dancers of the industry. Am I the only one saying it? No. Even Ash is considered one of the best dancers ever, if you already did not see the link that I cited.
 * How does one perfect classical dance if they are not even trained in it? Please stop being biased and do a little bit of research. Both Esha and Ash are classically trained dancers. If you do not believe that link, here is another one. I'm not denying Madhuri's dancing skills. She is awesome. But just because she is awesome, it does not mean others are inferior. Period.
 * Yes, she has primarily worked in the Hindi film industry. No one is denying that. But she has wonderful work in other languages too. We cannot ignore that. If it cannot be changed to 'Indian cinema', at least a mention should be given to the high success she has seen in Bengali and Tamil cinema. About her Hollywood/UK productions, Bride and Prejudice and Pink Panther were successful, and Provoked was a moderate success and she received mostly positive reviews for the film (LOL). 3 out of 5 films being successes or garnering positive feedback is no where a failure for someone who is new to the West. For example, compare her to Zinta, 2 out of 2 went down the drain. At least Aish is much better than any of the Indian actresses.
 * You know what, being an unrecognized article, yet being encyclopedic is much better than a GA with inaccurate information. Btw, that was NOT my POV. I just wrote what was published in the media with reliable sources. Calling that POV is ridiculous to say the least! We've already been waiting for more editors for selecting the right review for Ash's performance in Provoked. Seeems like no one is even attending to it. Use some of your contacts and invite your folks in. If I knew how to do that I would've done that myself. Unfortunately you are the only person I know here. :( Sanjay911 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I'm not one of those you can count on, and I'm sorry I'm not a die-hard fan who will support your attempts to glorify her. All you make me do is correct your edits. Just to let you know, I have probably made the highest number of edits to this page, and for years I've been protecting it from either POV or vandalism and contributing to it with sources and information. Aish is no Madhuri and she has not been given the same kind of acclaim for her work as a dancer. Period. And once again, Madhuri's page is not a reference guide for other articles. Aish is a leading actress in the Hindi film industry. Her five films in Tamil do not even make her a leading actress in this industry, let alone Indian cinema as a whole, which consists of numerous film industries in many other languages. Claims like "wonderful work in other languages" and "Aish is much better than any of the Indian actresses" are your POV. I do understand you, and I know why you cannot see anything but good when it comes to Aish, but it doesn't mean I'm going to support you with that. Let's wait for other editors to have their say. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is where you miss the point. I did not even compare her to Madhuri. It was only because you complained because of the edit I made, I just cited Madhuri's page as an example/reference. All the articles from the reliable sources I've mentioned hail Aishwarya as one of the best dancers Bollywood has ever seen. Note - I said one of the. Not the most. I never said she is better than Madhuri or vice versa. Each one has their own acclaim given. As simple as that. According to Wiki, how many movies should one do in an industry to be condsidered a leading actress of that industry? I've never heard of any such rule! I said Indian cinema because that's the only way one could commonize Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Bengali etc. "Wonderful work in other languages" because she has seen 90% success rate in regional cinema. And that needs to be said. "Aish is much better than other actresses" when you compare any other top actress' success rate outside Indian cinema. She has had 3 out of 5 successes in Hollywood/UK cinema. No joke. This is not POV. These are just plain facts! Nobody is asking for your support (as if one doesn't already know your dislike for Ash). I'm eagerly waiting for other neutral editors to have their say on this matter. Sanjay911 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You did compare her to Madhuri, and if you don't, then stop bringing the article here and keep the discussion relevant. Superlatives are not necessary, mentioning the recognition she got is more than enough. Not even going to discuss this Indian cinema thing, I was clear enough. I'm actually a neutral editor, but for you neutral is the one who will go on with your deep belief that Aish is the best in everything she does. As for that lovely line, "as if one doesn't already know your dislike for Ash" - yeh, fun/fan stuff. Keep statements like that for all to see. That makes clear who you are and what your "work" on WP is all about (along with your previous little acts, which I won't elaborate on now; maybe next time). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did compare it to Madhuri, but when?, only when you had a problem with it. If I bring the article here, it is only because I believe the same rule should apply to everyone. If 'superlatives' are accepted for her, they should be accpeted for everyone else too. I made my point about "Indian cinema" thing too. Btw, if you were so particular about it, why was it "Indian film industry" for so many years? Why do you suddenly have a problem with it? Yes, your dislike for her is quite apparent and obvious. I still do not take my 'lovely' statement back because I stand by it. I came to that conclusion going by your attitude to anything related to Ash. My "motive" on WP is crystal clear, to make this messy page much better. I've never hidden the fact that I'm an Ash fan and my edits would only be concentrated about things around Rai. You got a problem? You're free to complain. Sanjay911 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ash is no Madhuri and they get different recognition for their dancing. Just like you wouldn't use the same words that are used on Meryl Streep's article for Ash, same applies here. Ash is not recognised for her dancing as much as Madhuri. Again, I refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for the Indian cinema thing - first, it was not here for years, second, even if it was, I'm free to change it because it's incorrect. As for the rest of your fan-based (and frankly, childish) accusations... well, whatever. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you'd say whatever when the allegations are so strong. Well, seriously, whatever. Hate her as much as you want. You can have personal likes and dislikes and nothing is wrong about it. Just don't bring it into this. Oh, the so called different recognition that you are talking about, I got you the same sources praising Ash in a similar way as one of the best dancers of Bollywood. You have the links above. I have nothing more to prove in that regard. You are the one who complains about me comparing other articls, then why are you getting Meryl Streep into this again and again. Oh well. Sanjay911 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly speaking, I cannot take seriously someone whose editing includes vandalism, POV editing, addition of false awards (a false MTV award nomination, a false Filmfare Award win), creation of unauthorised accounts to contribute to an edit war - all just to glorify one person. I'm mentioning Meryl Streep because you're mentioning Madhuri. Just like you cannot compare Streep and Rai where acting is concerned (although I'm sure you may do it) you cannot compare her dancing with Madhuri's. They're not the same. What has to be said is said and is enough. And now you will come up with something like "oh and why then does Madhuri...?" - so here I come with the Streep example. And once again, this claim of yours that someone "dislikes" her here is one usually made by die-hard fans. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination
I don't know why it was nominated for a GA and so soon, but it's not there yet IMO, and it's got a long way to go. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not a single edit was made since the last GA fail. Please withdraw. BollyJeff  ||  talk  11:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing to worry! I knw the article isn't expanded after the previous nomination. But I have cited few unsourced statements which was mentioned in the GA review and still a few changes needs to be carried out. Once those issues are fixed, I'm pretty sure that there won't be any problem. -- Thalapathi  (Ping Back)  12:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad; I must have been looking at the talk page history instead of the article history. Still, as the other reviewer said, all potentially challenged statements need to be cited. BollyJeff  ||  talk  14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Robot
All the sources which claim it is the highest-grossing film ever look quite unreliable to me. If this is really true, it must have been published in newspapers like The Hindu and TOI.

Also, one of the sources says, "It is heard that, in all the languages put together, the film grossed..." - well, if all languages are counted here together, then it must noted. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  10:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well others might not be reliable as you said, but The Economic Times is a highly reliable source and so is NDTV and the gross figures is from all versions. -- Thalapathi  (Ping Back)  16:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Filmography table
As you may know, filmography tables have been the subject of several discussions in recent years. I have converted the table to a sortable table for two reasons. First, the Rowspan feature makes the table more difficult to access for people using a screen reader. Please see WP:Accessibility for more information. Second, sortability has its own advantages, and is not possible with Rowspans in place. -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Modelling
Just have a look at and. The former says that "she only accepted the Telugu film, Mamagaru, in which she made a special appearance" while the latter also confirms that she made a special appearance in a Telugu film in 1991. can someone come up with some ideas. Also check out this one -- Commander  (Ping Me) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one "should" be reliable, but if there's a mistake in it, it should not be used. The second one looks unreliable. The third one is a fan site, so it should really not be used. Can you find anything else more convincing? BollyJeff  ||  talk
 * Even this | book source says that she won. How did you decide that she did not? BollyJeff  ||  talk  15:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm totally confused. It was you the one who first asked me how did you add it without discussing it on the talk page and you removed it and now asking that how I decided that she did not win. I can't find her name in the official website. Rediff is considered more reliable, but it's really shocking when such sources publish non-verifiable information, like the one which states that she starred in a Telugu film first. -- Commander  (Ping Me) 16:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it has been suggested that most of the stuff under "International Media" can be moved to "Awards and honors". I'm planning to combine both under a single section. -- Commander (Ping Me) 17:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Last lead edits
I cannot really agree with this last lead expansion by Vensatry. What's the big deal about being a jury member at Cannes and how does it belong to the lead? Also, she was the brand ambassador for many different organisations, I do not see how their mention here is essential. Remember, this is the lead - it should summarise the article, not present some random facts which the lady herself has most probably already forgotten about. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reviewer asked us to add stuff from the whole article, not just her film career. If you can do better with that last paragraph, please do so. BollyJeff  ||  talk  23:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead was expanded after consulting with two editors, one of them from Guild of copyeditors. If you feel the added content does not summarise the whole article, I suggest you better expand the lead instead of just trimming the text. Also what's wrong in including something about "social causes". -- Commander (Ping Me) 08:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fantastic to have social causes in the lead if they are a major part of her career, however these two organisations seem rather inconsequential in the lead. There can be many other ways to expand it. And just to let you know, I was the one who first expanded her lead in the past, so you cannot really consider me as an opponent. I'm in complete support of expansion. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted myself until some better and worthier info can be found. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I can't agree with bollyjeff's latest additions to the lead. Being ranked by a magazine is not worthy enough to be listed in the lead. Instead, a french honour which is more notable can be included. Commander (Ping Me) 18:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Put it then, I don't care. Just trying to get the reviewer to move forward. BollyJeff  ||  talk  19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not very relevant in the lead simply because a specific spot should be mentioned. Guys, I semi-restored the previous version of the lead. I don't think it's that necessary to mention where she was born or raised - that's what we have the infobox and the early life section for. Also, why should one conclude that her career in films derives from her triumph at the Miss World contest? It's original research. More than anything, today she does not regularly work as a model. We can say that she is a former model, but instead the option is to have it there in the following sentence. And that socialite thing really amused me. She has done some social activities like almost every popular actor does, it's not that she invests most of her precious time on it. It deserves a mention, which it gets, but I think there we should draw the line. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you believe that the GA reviewer actually made those edits that you are complaining about? He/she even called her a supermodel :) Check it out. BollyJeff  ||  talk  23:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I felt this article had only a few problems after it quick-failed at the first nomination. Looks like many have conflicts of ideas, henceforth I give up. I don't mind even if someone tries to speedy this. - Commander (Ping Me) 05:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)