Jump to content

Talk:Aishwarya Rai Bachchan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Filmography

Can someone include Guru in her selected filmography? She got several best actress nominations and high critical praise for that role. The film was a box office hit as well. Thanks. Afnone (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. BollyJeff | talk 10:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2012

117.198.229.104 (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)can you plz add more other name of aishwarya rai like gullu, ash, queen of bollywood and dream girl

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Too many images

There is this user Anachopra who keeps constantly adding images, many of which are irrelevant. He has also added copyrighted material and never seem to listen. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2012

dxk 117.198.229.104 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Nothing requested. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Acting Career

@Smarojit : -

Rai's performances in Shabd, Guru & Raavan/Ravanan

1. Shabd movie

Shabd movie -

Ash acting in Shabd movie? - is it all negative like you mentioned? I could only get these sources for the film & haven't seen too many reviews for old films. what about these reviews? Why was only times of India review considered?

India today review - positive (Aishwarya Rai looks stunning and acts well) Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/film-review-shabd-starring-sanjay-dutt-aishwarya-rai/1/194245.html

GAUTAMAN BHASKARAN from "The Hindu" - Positive Does "Shabd" have anything at all to lift it from the abysmal pit it seeks to hide in? Yes, Rai's acting, - > Read more at http://www.hindu.com/fr/2005/02/11/stories/2005021102150202.htm

Sify Bollywood Review - Positive on her portrayal (noted - > Aishwarya Rai takes to the role with conviction. And like always, the screen fills up with her persona.) http://www.sify.com/movies/bollywood/review.php?id=13663520&ctid=5&cid=2425

Rediff - Not completely negative like TOI, -> http://www.rediff.com/movies/2005/feb/04shabd.htm

Planet Bollywood - I believe this is one of the site where you can get chance to read old film reviews. http://www.planetbollywood.com/Film/Shabd/ ( not negative )

TOI - Negative.

2. GURU - Positive reaction from critics on ASH performance

Khalid mohamed - http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM21/REVIEW-Guru-Good-value-for-Mani/Article1-199345.aspx

Taran Adarsh - http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/criticreview/id/539430

Raja Sen from rediff - http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/jan/12guru.htm

DNA - http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_when-form-and-style-merge_1074089

SIFY - http://www.sify.com/movies/tamil/review.php?id=14368493&ctid=5&cid=2429

The hindu - http://www.hindu.com/fr/2007/01/19/stories/2007011900130200.htm

Masand - http://ibnlive.in.com/news/masands-verdict-thumbs-up-for-guru/top/31056-8.html

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932462?refcatid=31

Amodini Sharma - http://www.planetbollywood.com/displayReview.php?id=012107121555

3. Positive reaction for acting - > Ravannan , Tamil reviews.

http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article474237.ece?homepage=true

http://movies.rediff.com/review/2010/jun/18/review-raavanan-is-better-than-raavan.htm

http://www.sify.com/news/Raavanan-compelling-tale-of-modern-day-Sita-s-plight-IANS-Tamil-Film-Review-Rating-1-2-news-National-kgtrOvddfdi.html

http://www.sify.com/movies/tamil/review.php?cid=2429&id=14945831#

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/review-vikram-prithviraj-excel-in-raavanan/124825-47-92.html

Hindi version reviews -

http://www.aolbollywood.com/2010/06/21/raavan-review

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/criticreview/id/507455

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/hindi/Raavan/movie-review/6058139.cms

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/raavan-boy-blunder-lost-in-an-epic-mess/1/102055.html

Komal Nahta - http://www.koimoi.com/reviews/komal-nahtas-review-raavan/

Aseem chhabra from rediff - http://movies.rediff.com/report/2010/jun/18/aseem-chhabra-reviews-raavan.htm

http://www.planetbollywood.com/displayReview.php?id=f061810050927

Below are who critized Rai's charater. Interesting that the same masand gave positive response for her in tamil version.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/masand-raavan-is-a-bore-of-a-film/124771-47-84.html and DNA review

Ssg2442 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


Here are the reviews of Bride and prejudice,most of the critics have appreciated her performance.Please do mention it.


http://www.cinemablend.com/review.php?id=1034 ("Lalita,flawlessly portrayed by Rai")

http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/7172/ ("Rai is appealingly feisty, particularly during Lalita’s verbal sparring sessions with Darcy"--"Rai is such a silver screen natural that she deserves an equally formidable leading man")

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/movies/orl-db-moviereviews-searchresults,0,3279701,results.formprofile?turbine_cdb_lib__cdb_01_txt=Bride%20&%20Prejudice&Find+it%21=Submit+Query (" Rai is a radiant presence on the screen, an almost supernaturally beautiful woman (60 Minutes called her "the most beautiful woman in the world") who can sing and dance and act")

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050210/REVIEWS/502100302/1023 "Rai exudes not the frightening seriousness of a woman who thinks she is being sexy, but the grace and ease of a woman who knows she is fun to look at and be around."


http://decentfilms.com/reviews/brideandprejudice

http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Bollywood-sings-to-Jane-Austen-2699928.php

And many more(Check IMDB)..So can safely say that 85+% reviews were positive about Ash's performance.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


Aishwarya Rai → Aishwarya Rai Bachchan – Full name after marriage. All leading newspapers have started using this name, see here Tito Dutta (contact) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Xavier449 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vivek Oberoi

Just wondering why no mention of her relationship with Vivek Oberoi is in the article. Surely there should be something, even if a fleeting comment Mahak01 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

She never acknowledged it.--Corey.HamsUSA (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood career and beauty

There is no explanation in the article that warrants a line such as "She made some inroads internationally, but all of her Hollywood films proved to be disappointing at the box office" in the lead. Also, removing a well-sourced reference about her being one of the most beautiful woman of the world, because of the fact that she is 39 years old is severely misogynistic. --smarojit (buzz me) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

39 is somehow old? I'm aging rapidly...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Excatly my point, how is 39 old? And yet... --smarojit (buzz me) 19:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The article does warrants a line in the lead summary about her failed Hollywood career. She failed to gain any footing in Hollywood but nevertheless, she did make some inroads internationally when things such as securing a lucrative promotional deal with L'Oreal cosmetics, appearing on '60 Minutes' and 'The Oprah Winfrey Show' twice and making to the cover of Time magazine are taken into account. Bollywood had many successful cross-over actors and actresses, including Tabu, Anupam Kher, Amrish Puri, Anil kapoor, Irrfan Khan, Danny Denzongpa and Amitabh Bachan. As for the age, 39 is quite old for a beauty queen. If media outlets are still referring to her as such, then update the sources. As far as I know, she was often cited in the media as the "most beautiful woman in the world" in her 20s and early 30s.--IsaacsirupChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
"39 is quite old for a beauty queen". Wow! That's a very interesting statement. :P Here are some "RECENT" sources that still refer to her as the most beautiful woman in the world:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/17/aishwarya-rai-longines_n_3453217.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2149533/Aishwarya-Rai-Bachchan-lives-worlds-beautiful-woman-title-Cannes-amfar-cruel-critics-slam-baby-weight.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/470913/20130524/aishwarya-rai-bachchan-cannes-film-festival-amfar.htm

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/REL-learn-tips-on-motherhood-from-blue-eyed-beauty-aishwarya-rai-bachchan-4276604-PHO.html

http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/celebrity/aishwarya-rai-beauty-beyond-imagination_130787.htm

As for the failed Hollywood career, you can definitely put that in the lead, as long as there is a suitable explanation (with relaibale sources) provided in the main body. Okay? --smarojit (buzz me) 19:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am ok with it then. The main body does mention her Hollywood career and it's perfectly alright to have that sourced-line in the lead. You can modify the body of the article if you want. Each of her Hollywood films grossed less than $40 million domestically. In Bollywood, even if a low budget movie out-grosses its budget, it is considered a flop-such as Bbuddah... Hoga Terra Baap. Likewise, in Hollywood, a movie that grosses less than $40 million domestically is considered a flop movie. All of the cross-over actors and actresses I mentioned above have at least one movie to their credit that grossed in excess of $100 million domestically. Her movie Bride and Prejudice was like the Rangrezz of Hollywood.--IsaacsirupChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are so keen on mentioning that in the lead, it is but fair that you support these claims by using reliable sources in the main body, why are you asking me to do that? Just out of curiosity, what if a Hollywood film's budget is $10 million, and it grosses less than $40 million domestically. Is it still a flop? --smarojit (buzz me) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In Bollywood, if a movie grosses one crore or the likes, it is considered a flop movie by BoxOfficeIndia, regardless of its budget. The rest is obvious. I am not telling you to do anything. The line is sourced and I believe her Hollywood career is sufficiently covered in the body of the article.--IsaacsirupChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
As much as you think you are right, can you provide me with a reliable source to back your statement? Also, another reliable source to prove that Bride & Prejudice was a box office flop will be welcome. Thank you. --smarojit (buzz me) 20:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@Isaacsirup : You can call it a megaflop, but then why does these sources talk differently.

From Hindustan Times:

Ash has done successful international projects like Bride & Prejudice (2004) and Provoked (2007). While Mistress Of Spices (2005) and The Last Legion (2007) flopped, The Pink Panther 2 (2009) did moderate business. Source : http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/OVER-THE-YEARS-Ash-good-as-it-can-get/Article1-930831.aspx

One of british popular site said Bride and prejudice is a hit film - Success: Aishwarya made a name for herself in English language films including Bride & Prejudice back in 2004. NDTV said - In 2004, she scored her first international movie, Bride And Prejudice, directed by Brit-Indian talent Gurinder Chadha. Aishwarya's performance as the Punjabi version of Jane Austen's classic heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, divided critical opinion but did put her on Hollywood's radar. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2006513/Aishwarya-Rai-Abhishek-Bachchan-expecting-baby.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/people/who-is-aishwarya-rai-bachchan-217018

http://www.liveindia.com/ash/films.html - a Hollywood-funded but Bollywood-ized version of Jane Austen's classic novel, Pride and Prejudice. The movie came just shy of breaking even at the US box office but earned over 400% return on investment in global revenue.

Ssg2442 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is best to ignore this user. He just wants an argument. Bride & Prejudice was not a box-office flop, neither was Pink Panther 2 (per sources provided by Ssg above). --smarojit (buzz me) 10:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi Smarojit. There is no denying fact that you are the most important contributor for this article as you did made so many changes, and took it to the next level. I didn't reverted all of your points every time. If I edited anything you just immediately revert it back at the moment without seeing the sources that I Include. The lead section definitely needs to be rephrased for few statements. I have just done that and added one statement to what it was originally. I wanted to share below points with you. (Not just my assumption, have sources to the content I added)

Whats really wrong in these 3 statements? I know I may not be good at presenting these points in neutral way. So please do look at it. Thank you.

1. She is a leading contemporary actress of Indian cinema, noted for both her dramatic and offbeat roles, and her accomplished dancing. (When this kind of statement is allowed to put it in other articles, why not in this one?)

It was also stated in recent article from HT that

Present: Today, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is not just regarded for her looks and acting but has also been credited for bringing India on the international showbiz map to an extent.

2. It was stated originally as, "She is a leading contemporary actress of Indian cinema and has received two Filmfare Awards, two Screen Awards, and two IIFA Awards for her performances in Hindi language films of Bollywood". I think, the screen and Zee awards have 2 types of best actress categories, one jury and one popular choice. Both are given based on the performances only. In that case, Rai has won 3 for screen (2 - Jury + 1 -Best actress popular choice) and 4 Zee Awrads . Most acting awards – Female [Best Actress (Popular) + Best Actress (Critics) + Best Supporting Actress] Aishwarya Rai (2+2+0) = 4.

So I edited as "During her career, She has acted in over 40 films in different genres and has received two Filmfare Best Actress Awards, among ten nominations for her performances in Hindi language films of Bollywood".

3.. It was not just Bhansali's films that brought her public recognition. The year 1999, proved to be a turning point in her career as her performances in both films gave her recognition as an actress. After few yrs, then Devdas gave her international fame.

My change was - In 1999, She received wide public recognition for her leading roles in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's melodrama Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Subhash Ghai's musical romance Taal; both films earned her a Filmfare Best Actress nomination with the former fetching her the award.[13][4] Rai received her second Best Actress (Filmfare Award) for her role as "Parvati" in Bhansali's 2002 period film Devdas which brought her international acclaim.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Bollywood-stars-who-journeyed-from-ramp-to-reel-successfully/Article1-1030642.aspx?hts0021

http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/film/the-two-worlds-of-aishwarya-rai#full http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Aishwarya+-+most+bankable+Bollywood+star+in+at+35/1/19105.html http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/apr/03sld1.htm

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/OVER-THE-YEARS-Ash-good-as-it-can-get/Article1-930831.aspx

http://www.mid-day.com/photos/b-town-specials/subhash-ghai-and-his-muses/aishwarya/

Cheers, Ssg2442 (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hey, thanks for the talk page message. I am in no doubt about any of your edits, and I know that they are well sourced. But let me list the reason why I want to change some of your edits:
  • Having had some experience at the FAC (where I intend to take Rai's article next), I want to insure an excellent prose quality. For example, a statement such as "noted for both her dramatic and offbeat roles, and her accomplished dancing" will be met with a lot of comments from senior editors. First issue, what do you mean by "offbeat roles"? That is not an encyclopaedic term. Also, what is "accomplished dancing"? We can add a note about her dancing skills, but not in this way. Give me some time and I will include a comment about her dancing skills in the lead.
  • Okay, moving on. The statement "During her career, She has acted in over 40 films in different genres and has received two Filmfare Best Actress Awards, among ten nominations for her performances in Hindi language films of Bollywood". I am not sure why her number of films need to mentioned here. We can include the fact that she has acted in various regional films too (which most of her contemporaries haven't). In the FAC review of Kareena Kapoor, several reviewers pointed out the irrelevance of beginning a statement with "during her career" (which is a obvious thing, isn't it?).
  • Lastly, 1999! You say Taal was a very important film in her career, and yes it was. But so was Mohabbatein. Infact, Mohabbatein was even more important. The amount of publicity she received for her supporting role in the film was unparalleled. However, i stress this fact again: good, concise prose is extremely important. The line that you want to add: "In 1999, She received wide public recognition for her leading roles in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's melodrama Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Subhash Ghai's musical romance Taal; both films earned her a Filmfare Best Actress nomination with the former fetching her the award.[13][4] Rai received her second Best Actress (Filmfare Award) for her role as "Parvati" in Bhansali's 2002 period film Devdas which brought her international acclaim." is grammatically incorrect, confusing, and will most definitely be met with a negative response at the FAC.
You need to trust me on the fact that I want to improve the article as much as you do (as you can see at Rai's talk page), but if you revert my edits simply because you don't like them I won't be able to contribute any further and help the article reach the status that it deserves! Having said that, I will be more than happy to take a back-seat if you decide to take the article to FAC instead of me. All I can do is give you some advice, the rest is upto you. :-) --smarojit (buzz me) 07:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Barnstar :-) and the explanation for my points. I completely agree since you have more experience working on FAC/GA articles. I would like to see Rai's page to GA and then FA. But that's only possible with you. I will not revert your edits anymore before discussing with you on the talk page. But please do consider the sources that I have mentioned before and if it make sense, then include a comment about her choice of roles and dancing skills.

1. I think she is known for her roles in offbeat and dramatic than a comedy/commercial mainstream cinema. (I agree, Offbeat is not a proper term to use.)

2. Yes, Mohabbatein did gave her so much publicity for her supporting role. But it just didnt has much in terms of acting. Its the year 1999 was a milestone for her career as she quickly stole the limelight for her leading roles in HDDCS & Taal. Her acting and dancing skills were appreciated in both the films. Am just throwing my opinion here, that a comment on her acting (dramatic , offbeat like chokher bali) & dancing should be included in the lead, as many leading newspapers always mention about it. For example - Rediff stated that "After Sanjay Leela Bhansali's hit film Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, Taal strengthened Ash's standing in the industry. She was now accepted as an actress, instead of just being touted as a beautiful face."

http://www.rediff.com/movies/2003/oct/22sld8.htm

Ssg2442 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. We need to include a line about her work in "independent films" (a better word than offbeat, perhaps) and the fact that she has received acclaim for her dancing skills. For now, we need to wait for the block to be lifted from the page. :D --smarojit (buzz me) 04:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

If it is any consolation to those whose work was repeatedly undone leading to the article being protected, let it be known that the troublemaker was outed as a sock puppet. Being a curious being and always wanting to see who are the idiots who spoil it for everybody else, I looked up those involved in the edit war and see that the editor causing (starting) all the trouble is actually a [puppet]. Looks like 'he' was outed a day after the page was protected. Unfortunately, I am sure 'he' will be back under another name. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the update Correia. I really hope that 'he' isn't back to create more trouble!--smarojit (buzz me) 13:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Mother's name

Vrinda Rai or at least Brinda Rai but never Brindya Rai. Couldn't edit that section due to edit box limit. Pls fix it. neo (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --smarojit (buzz me) 09:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2013

Manavkailu143 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Please be more specific about your request. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images being added everyday!

Can anything be done about new non-free images being added by a certain editor almost every day? Frankly I am tired of reverting!! --smarojit HD 06:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a block can be requested. This user is probably not checking his talk page. A block can be the way to get his attention and tell him/her to stop. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You see this user has been blocked before, for doing the same things. He/she just doesn't learn! --smarojit HD 07:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess then only solution is an extended block.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Aishwara Rai page deserve wiki:featured articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.236.240 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Information not under the best section

The langthy information given about rai's relationship and marriage in the introductory part should better be placed under the section personal life. Right? aish.ego (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead (per WP: Lead) should be a summary of the entire article. Hence, a line about her personal life is necessary information for the lead. --smarojit HD 09:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but you could remove the part about past relationships. They do not matter so much now that she is married. BollyJeff | talk 12:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with that (removing past relationship). It is enough important. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks bollyjeff n smarojit, a line abt prsonal life is sufficient then :) aish.ego (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Come Back

It is being rumored that she is making a comeback by the film of Happy Annieversary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.172.105 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

New image

Aishwarya Rai in Oct 2013

Current infobox image is also good. I was unable to find equally good image on BH. Now I think I found one. But I leave it upto other users to decide. Abhi (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This looks better. The current image in the page is bit old i think! I support for this change. --    L o g  X   17:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


Honors

An editor removed a sentence I added with citation- and under the apt section- Awards and honors recieved- just recently, Rai was honored as the most successful Miss World- http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/miss-world/miss-world-2013-megan-young-poses-beauty-queen-aishwarya-rai-bachchan AND IBN --says-- http://ibnlive.in.com/news/miss-world-2014-aishwarya-rai-bachchan-felicitated-for-being-the-most-successful-miss-world-so-far/518162-8-66.html . Now can we have this Important honor added in here? Mousanonyy (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion or information??

Someone is telling me that a reference http://thepushpins.com/aishwarya-rai-most-beautiful-miss-world-ever/ where the follwing sentence is written (i copy pasted it) ""Aishwaraya Rai was elected as Most Beautiful Miss World Ever for the second time."" Is an opinion and not information. Can anyone reply fast coz this is really irritating. aish.ego (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That and similar other online links mention the same thing. But where or when ? I couldn't find if Miss World organization have ever declared something like that.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete the achievements from here then,https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Aishwarya_Rai bcoz if i will do so, u will revert it, coz u r a senior editor ..aish.ego (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
n enough, i said ur talk page isnt wrapped in ice creams that i love editing there vigyani, dont post on my talk page ever, blocked can u be as well. aish.ego (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Already done. One thing, I do not revert your edits because I am senior or junior. I revert if I find them not-useful or wrong or POVy. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
You didnt delete this "She won the most beautiful Miss World ever in 2000 received the highest score of 9.911 .[37]" from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Aishwarya_Rai aish.ego (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, right, she never won the most beautiful miss world honor. But she did win the Most Successful recently @ vigyani. So why have a problem with that>? Mousanonyy (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide some reliable references which mention the this statement. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see the section "HONOUR" below. Also, I think I made it quite clear that I had entered citations. < ref> followed by links which you deleted then followed by </ ref> is most probably a citation as I had done and you had reverted. anyway, before you see the links below., here are more (and you can google for even more)- http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-aishwarya-rai-bachchan-the-most-successful-miss-world-2044171, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/miss-world-2014-aishwarya-rai-bachchan-felicitated-for-being-the-most-successful-miss-world-so-far/518162-8-66.html, http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/miss-world-2014-aishwarya-rai-bachchan-felicitated-for-her-commitment-to-beauty-with-a-purpose/ Mousanonyy (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I checked the sources provided by you and many others. There is some confusion among all the newspapers. Some mention the award as "Beauty with Purpose", some for her charity works, and only few cite the award for most successful. The Indian Express you cited above doesn't mention that article is for being the most successful miss world in their article body. I checked the Miss World website and failed to see any award given the Rai. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The honour was given in UK and the UK newspapers and sites can't be wrong. The fact is that she was honored as the "Most successful Miss World ever" FOR "keeping the ""beauty with purpose"" very much alive" as a responsibility for being Miss World. In fact, beauty with a purpose is an award given every year, not to a Former Miss World 20 years after her reign. Nearly every paper discusses the reasons (charity etc) for being honored as most successful miss world. But she wasnt awarded Miss Charity or something like that. Reasons and outcome are two different things Mousanonyy (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
And I don't many sources saying that award is for being Most Successful. Most of the papers mention that award is for her charity works and then add a line later as "she is also seen as the most successful miss world". I checked Miss World website, their twitter feed, but could not find this award. Look like, since she was invited to the program, she was just handed a trophy and the Indian news media is going gaga over it.Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the oficial You tube channel of miss world , and it says "Lifetime Beauty with a purpose award" . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsnFiWM4x4 Debate over. So we shall have this title included in the article. (The Indian media is technically advanced enough to not make up titles in all the papers)(And your English needs a serious brush-up) Mousanonyy (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
So it is not "Moss successful" nonsense. And you need a serious brush up with WP policies. I know how advanced Indian media is --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes right it is not Most Successful Miss World nonsense and it is good if you know about the Indian media, then you should not allege without any proof that it goes gaga over things (WP policies you know :D ). Okay then here I go on with the edit- Lifetime Beauty with a purpose". (Editors knowing better English than you exhibited above would be favorable to English Wiki and there was not any violation of WP policies. I was actually reading some of your sentences twice to make the best meaning out of them) Mousanonyy (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry if you had any trouble in understanding my comments. I realized that I made some mistakes while trying to type quickly. Knowledge of WP policies is more important, as long as the English level is of sufficient standards. Not everyone has same level of understanding. Coming to violations; calling someone "Most Successful" is very subjective. These kind of statements (first, best, topmost etc) need exceptional sources for verification. In these case, I don't see if any survey or studies are done which will declare her as "Most Successful". So using this term would have been the violations of WP:NPOV.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think I have clearly agreed to not including the words "most successful" already. Thank you. Mousanonyy (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverting and then Warning to block

There is this user called Vigyani, who is reverting a word which is a part of the link of the sentence concerned. "Aishwarya Rai was felicitated (felicitated simply means congratulated) with the award." The citation link uses the same word "felicitated" but this user is reverting this edit again and again on account of tagging it as "promotional" which is clearly not the case. Please tell me what to do. Mousanonyy (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not an unnecessary revert by Vigyani. We must follow WP: NEUTRALITY and therefore "presented" is the best way to say it. Every award is presented to congratulate the recipient, so there is no point in puffery by using a words like "felicitated" in this context. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Krimuk. But I checked and even the dictionary meaning of the word is not at all flattering; plus the award is an outstanding one and not felicitated every year or even decade. The biggest point is that the citation link-click on it- too uses that word. If we follow the neutrality so strictly, nearly every line will undrgo changes as follows-
2nd line of article-Rai has established herself as a """"leading"""" contemporary actress of Indian cinema and has become one of Bollywood's highest-paid actresses. ("""without citation"""")
3rd line- She has received """"several""""" awards and nominations, (one can already rad about the awards so why use the word "several".)
She earned """"wide"""" public recognition and Best Actress awards at Filmfare for her leading roles in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's 1999 melodrama Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and the 2002 period film Devdas.(how wide without citations?)
She garnered wide critical acclaim for her work in Bhansali's 2010 romantic drama Guzaarish. (citations?)

and so on. Wiki is ultimately in English here and humans have a minimum sense of understanding words without misinterpreting them. they have an idea that some things are "generally obvious" and might not need citatins or too many rules imposed on 'em. Mousanonyy (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Mousanonyy (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All citations are in the main body, and each of these claims are well cited, and don't need a repeat in the lead as per WP: LEAD. So no, the words you so kindly highlighted do not need to be changed. Also, I am done discussing this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well that's okay. Don't be too obliged with my kindness. I got my line in there, m happy for the day :D. Thanks. Mousanonyy (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Global importance

I don't doubt that this woman is a huge celebrity in India, but "one of the most admired and revered women [...] in the world"? I don't think so! Most people outside the subcontinent won't have heard of her. --Ef80 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, must have been added by one of her many fans. Thanks for pointing it out. Anyway, I have removed the sentence. The lower portion of the article has quite a lot of fluff, I'll try to give it a thorough look later this week. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aishwarya Rai Bachchan/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


In the process of going over the article and comparing against the necessary requirements as stated at WP:Good article criteria. — Cirt (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've made one minor edit, fixing dashes using a script, at 22:08, 18 October 2015. — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not GA at this time

  1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
  2. I'm sorry to say, unfortunately, this article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria at this time.
  3. It appears that the three (3) prior unsuccessful reviews of this article were not sufficiently consulted:
  4. Please look at those three (3) prior reviews, and this one, below, and try to address all points raised at those, before renominating again. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is not clear and concise. Grammar needs significant improvement throughout the entire article. Overusage of commas. Several sentences are too long and can be broken apart into shorter sentences. Article is too long and has poor organizational flow and is thus a disservice to our readers. Needs significant copy-editing work. Much more than could be done in the course of a seven day period. Fails here.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lede sect does not meet WP:LEAD. Lede imbalanced. Two large paragraphs, followed by 3rd, two-sentence-long paragraph. Lede fails WP:LEADCITE and WP:LEAD, citations should be in body text of article itself, and then summarized in the lede sect. Lede is not an adequate summary of all subsections of the entire article's contents, and does not function adequately as a standalone summary of the article. Fails here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Several instances of completely unreferenced material. Fails here.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Over ninety (90) sources have dead-links or non-functional links. Fails here.
2c. it contains no original research. I count at least five (5) instances of wholly unsourced information. Fails here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Filmography and awards includes a few movies in a list format. Then Awards sect switches abruptly back to paragraph format -- but the paragraph is a couple lines long, and again, tons of citations which is excessive. Either have a good comprehensive filmography, or discuss it instead in paragraph form worked into the article. Better example at current WP:FA page, Cillian Murphy. Fails here.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article goes into unnecessary detail. Huge subsections with walls-of-text paragraphs that are over four sentences long per paragraph. Amounts to TL;DR -- and thus, does not serve our readers well. Fails here.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article tone is POV. Reads like a promotional form of hagiography. Six (6) citations in lede intro sect, for has been cited in the media as the "most beautiful woman in the world" -- not only is this unencyclopedic and not memorable 100 years from now, the citations are excessive, fails WP:LEADCITE, and is another red-flag indicative of promotion and hagiography. Fails here.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is not stable. I see recent reverts in last few days, even after semi-protection. Article talk page is also not stable, I see repeated attempts at nomination of this page to forms of GA and FA quality review, only to be reverted, and then re-done, again, and here we are, again, now, with problem editor not addressed. Fails here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. The main infobox image is wrong. Source link says "All Rights Reserved". Several other images in article also link to website that says "All Rights Reserved". Fails here.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There are ten (10) images used in the article. I agree with a talk page post that said this was a bit too many and not necessary for the article. Fails here.
7. Overall assessment. Unfortunately, not GA at this time, per above. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad images

Especially this one is very bad and someone keeps inserting it again and again in article. Same with this one. At least 3 images in article are taken and uploaded by User:JJ Georges. Also current infobox image is very bad. Too much lipstick and face looks old. Users should choose images in the article and after it nobody should be allowed to insert images randomly. AbhiRiksh (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Performance in Sarbjit

11:21, 22 May 2016‎ Krimuk90 (talk | contribs)‎ . .(→‎Work after sabbatical (2015–present): Oh come on, her performance was almost unanimously criticized in this. Anupama Chopra gave her the only positive review. The majority viewpoint needs to be represented in this.

@Krimuk90 - Hi there!. Long time :-) I'm trying to understand why you think I wrote without considering majority viewpoint. May be my understanding could be wrong However If i make a point anytime on this article, that does not mean am her Biggest FAN. Lot of folks here assume that way. Anyway, I owe you little bit because you helped me learn a lot of things here. Hence am presenting my thoughts with you.

  • My Original comment:-

received mixed reactions from critics, as did Rai's performance. A few reviewers expressed that Rai was "miscast" as she neither looks nor sounds like a Sikh woman. Her Punjabi accent and in scenes where she is made to "scream and shout" was largely criticized. (If i am a FAN of hers or overlooked at reading majority of sources, i would not point that she was miscast. rather i would only show Anupama Chopra's review and say positive.)

  • Your Change:-

received "generally negative" reactions from critics, as did Rai's performance. "Most" reviewers expressed that Rai was miscast as she neither looked nor sounded like a Sikh woman. Her Punjabi accent and "her over-the-top performance" was largely criticized.

According to you, The film and Rai's performance was GENERALLY NEGATIVE. I mentioned as "Mixed" after reading the majority of the leading newspapers/sources. (For your reference, I listed them in the Sarbjit Article Talk page) -- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Sarbjit_(film) .

Miscast

Regarding this, I stated as "A Few Reviewers" and You changed it to "Most"....Out of 20 sources, I found only 3 reviewers directly expressing about miscasting her...

1) NDTV (Saibal Chatterjee) - Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan is woefully miscast as the dogged sister of the titular character. As Dalbir Kaur she neither looks nor sounds like a true-blue sardarni.
2) First Post (Anna MM Vetticad) - The primary problem is the casting of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan as Dalbir. She does not have the look or the body language of a Sardarni from rural Punjab.
3) IANS - Who gave positive review on her performance also said " Unfortunately, even after modulating her voice and emulating the mannerisms of a Punjabi, by no stretch of imagination, can she pass of as a "Sikhni" one is made to believe she is".

Criticism

Coming to performance, She was mainly criticized on these two particular things:
1) Her Punjabi Accent
2) In scenes where she is made to Scream & Shout or Shrill.
(This happened in her previous films too like Ravan & Jazbaa. I wonder why these directors screw good characters with melodrama..)

If you happen to read every review in detail, the critics will point out these two aspects for sure. Hence I mentioned as "Her Punjabi accent and in scenes where she is made to scream and shout was largely criticized"

You have changed this to -> "Her over-the-top performance". I think Perhaps the term "Inconsistent" would be right to say? Did most of reviewers say she was completely negative & over the top in every scene? or her performance through out the film been like that? Some critics clearly wrote that director couldn't fine-tune the emotions well and "She is made (or) required to Scream"... Also you said, "Anupama Chopra gave her the only positive review. The majority viewpoint needs to be represented in this". Not sure how you came to a conclusion on this when i myself pointed out faults and strengths in her performance according to reviews.

Here is what i found from major reviews: They will criticize her screams but not completely Negative of her at the same time.

  • The Hindu, Namratha Joshi -> "the director doesn’t seem to know how to calibrate emotions well. He goes overboard with melodrama, is so overtly manipulative that it leaves the various portrayals seem like cardboard cut-outs than throbbing with real life. So you have Aishwarya Rai as Dalbir who is loud, made to scream and shout and weep buckets to show her anguish". However, it’s in the quieter portrayal of grief—at the loss of her newborn for instance—that she seems far more affecting.

She finds problem with everybody's accent - The Punjabi accent of every character seems at variance with the other though they all hail from the same village in Tarn Taran district. In some cases the accent comes and goes at convenience. - http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/sarbjit-review/article8623088.ece

Hope whatever i written make sense not biased. However it is subjective to your modifications :-)
Thank you and Cheers, Ssg2442 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ssg2442 for taking the time out to do this. Much appreciated. From these I come to the conclusion that 1) yes, she was criticized for being over-the-top in several scenes, 2) but several critics have also taken note on how she shone in the quieter scenes of the film. I'll incorporate something along these lines in the article shortly. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
My Pleasure. Thank you for reading through such long notes. Now the paragraph looks more precise. However I would like to make a minor edit - instead of saying "Most" say as "Few Reviewers". When we reference to "Most/Many" it tell readers that its agreed to the greatest extent By MANY but really not all talked about miscasting her. I clarified this above. Also its reasonable to say "over-the-top in some scenes". (Examples, Rai-Bachchan rarely falters, except in scenes where she is made to thump her chest with jingoistic dialogue (or) there are points when she simply goes overboard with her display of rage and emotions.- ). other than this i have no queries. Please correct me if am wrong. Cheers! Ssg2442 (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 42 external links on Aishwarya Rai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Aishwarya Rai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Most beautiful woman"

I doubt this claim, since she hasn't topped any particular list of being most beautiful or related categories, she has been considered as one by some particular people, and some sources have been incorrectly used to put this claim on the lead,[1] [2] they don't support the "most beautiful" claim. Unless there is unanimous support for this "most beautiful woman" title, I would say we should not add this to lead. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The claim is not that "Rai is the most beautiful woman in the world", the claim is that "Rai is often said to be the most beautiful woman in the World". And for that claim, I think that the Telegraph article (quote: "Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, regularly touted as the world's most beautiful woman") and the CBS article (quote: "Who is the most beautiful woman in the world? .... the woman who currently holds the title, at least according to thousands of Web sites, Internet polls and even Julia Roberts, is ... Aishwarya Rai") are very decent sources indeed. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Biwom. No proper reasoning given by D4iNa4. Adding it back. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Biwom and Krimuk2.0: It's clearly not "often", rather an opinion of 2 articles that provided no sources and Roberts. You may find one or two more articles from reliable sources but none of them seems to be citing a particular poll or academic consensus. So again, unless there is unanimous support for this "most beautiful woman" title, you are providing inaccurate information. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
We need to follow WP:PEACOCK here. We don't just say it outright, we attribute it. See the Bob Dylan example. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. D4iNa4, one source says "regularly", the other "says "thousands of". We say "often". That seems OK to me.
Erik, you are right that we cannot write "Rai is often said to be the most beautiful woman in the World" if all we have in sources is various people saying "Rai is the most beautiful woman in the World". And you are right that it would require attribution. However, here what we have is various reliable sources saying "Rai is often said to be the most beautiful woman in the World". We say the same thing, so we do not need attribution, we just need to cite these sources.
You are referring to WP:PEACOCK but I think what you need to look at here is WP:WEASEL. And WEASEL states explicitly "views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source". If you have various reliable sources that say "the Beatles are widely regarded as the foremost and most influential act of the rock era", it's ok to write just that in Wikipedia. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
If there are various contenders for such a remark, then it would be avoided and rather said as "one of the most". We need to do something like that in this case as well. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Whether it's true or not (her being the most beautiful woman in the world), and whether or not it's just Bollywood hype gone global, she is in fact often called or noted as "the most beautiful woman in the world". Heck, even Oprah Winfrey noted that, when Rai was on her show. I don't for a second think that Rai is the most beautiful woman in the world, but this is an encyclopedia which reports facts, not opinions (or likes or dislikes), and the fact is the mention of her as the most beautiful woman in the world has gained so much currency it is practically a meme. So yes, it can and should stay, and is well cited. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Personal opinion is what we are using as sources here. If you are talking about facts, then the question remains how often was she named "most beautiful woman". You will find scarcity of sources as they are too low in amount and never a quality one. For example, Sandra Bullock was named "most beautiful woman" by people magazine [3], is there anything same available for Aishwarya Rai? Or any other authoritative source that decides it, not someone's personal opinion that we have indeed used as sources here. Oprah Winfrey is not a reliable source for any information. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome to start an RfC if you want. So far the consensus is to retain the information. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Aishwarya Rai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

succession boxes

Why doesn't she have succession boxes for Miss India World?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, it was never created actually, most of the Femina Miss India's don't have the succession box. I admit I find it very odd though. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Years active

Does anyone find it odd that the years active starts from the point she started her career as an actress? Per {{infobox person}} the tab refers to the whole range when the person has been active in his/her tenure. Since Aishwarya was a renowned model already before she even won Femina Miss India and Miss World 1994, the template should be updated to reflect that date. Penny for your thoughts? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, but did you notice the "occupation" field which specifies her mainly as an actress rather than a model. --Commander (Ping Me) 06:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Umm, she's both at present. Her main profession is an actress, her sub-profession includes both modelling and other activities. Even if you argue that she's mainly an actress now, that doesn't take way from the fact that she was a renowned model before 1994. I would point you to the page Madonna, where it says the year active from 1979, although Madonna released her first album in 1983. This is a classic example of the issue I'm pointing here, not to ignore the past profession of a person, simply because she is not doing it. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. What I meant to say was "Model" must also be included in "occupation" in the infobox. --Commander (Ping Me) 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine I will make the changes as per this consensus. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong with the photo

It looks like the top picture on the right hand side has been photoshopped, her head has been pasted onto a different picture. It makes her neck look like it belongs to a woman at least 20 years older than she is. Note the back of the neck where there is a little mis-alignment. Possibly use a different picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooshooze (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Aishlove1, 12 August 2011

Under awards and honours for Aishwarya Rai can you please add that she again refused the second highest honour of France because of the Mumbai blasts in 2011 and requested them to postpone it. She said," We pray for the victims and their families. And keeping in mind what's happened, we didn't deem it prudent to celebrate. My family and I felt it would be prudent to request that the ceremony be postponed, and we thank the French government for understanding our sentiments in the current situation." Thank you. Here are the sources. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mumbai-blasts-aishwarya-rai-bachchan-211005 Straight from her mouth- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D4xgnENwbs http://www.latestbbcnews.com/aishwarya-rai-condemns-the-news-of-postponed-french-award-ceremony-due-to-mumbai-blasts.html http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/2011/aishwarya-rai-french-award-mumbai-blasts-140711-aid0062.html http://ibnlive.in.com/photogallery/4400.html http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/article2226635.ece http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?ShowID=272&Id=ENTEN20110180006 Aishlove1 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please cite a reliable secondary source for the addition. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aishwarya_Rai_Bachchan/Archive_3&oldid=1140136487"