Talk:Aishwarya Rai Bachchan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Aishwarya Rai talk page (Discussion page). (2005 - 2010) - Please Do not edit!

Information

Personal Life:

Aish did not date Derek Jeter. It was Lara Dutta who dated Derek Jeter. Removed the false link and information.

---

She is a hollywood star. Shes acted in 5 or 6 hollywood films I think.

Hollywood Star( removed ) ?? I removed the line which sais that she was a hollywood star too.

---

Info

Ash is more popular than Rani and Preity as has been proved in surveys.Go to any popular site like imdb and askmen and you will find more information on her.But here Rani and Preity Page has more relevance.She was no1 on Filmfare Power List in 2003 and then 2 in next years.She is ahead of Rani and Preity in sexiest poll surveys by Eastern Eye mag But still it has been mentioned in Preity and Rani's page and not on Ash page.The charity by Preity and Rani is also hogwash as the money they donated was from KBC and not from them Ash has established the Aishwarya Rai foundation but it is not mentioned I dont understand this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.160.206 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Richest woman in India?

The richest woman in India is Kiran Shaw not Aishwarya Rai. Also this article needs a rewrite, there is a lot of duplicate information in multiple paragraphs. Lazyd0g 04:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it's Kiran "Shah" you idiot.. not "shaw".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Someone needs to put an IPA transcription of the pronunciation of her name in the article (I don't know how her name is pronounced, so I can't do it).

Agateller 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I put in an IPA transcription of her name, but I've never written in IPA before so it's probably wrong. Someone should check out how I've done it and see if I've written it correctly. Here's how her name is pronounced.

ash-WA-ri-uh rye

--BokuAlec 16:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct way to pronounce it is ice-WERE-yea rai. --Gurubrahma 13:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced with a 'sh' sound. When I've said it with a 'sh' sound, people have always known who I am talking about. I'm sure that in Hindi it's a 'sh' sound. Am I mistaken? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BokuAlec (talk • contribs) .

The way it is pronounced and written in South Indian languages is with a -ce sound and since she is a South Indian, I guess that the Hindi pronunciation you refer to can be considered non-standard. --Gurubrahma 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I accept that 'ce' is how it's pronounced in S Indian languages but I'm still a little wary about putting that down as its pronunciation. Call me stubborn, but I'd like a third opinion. Do you know of any sources which back up your 'ce' claim. (Not that I'm calling you a liar, but indulge me. Hehe) BokuAlec 19:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I am not an authority. Just a big fan who has followed Aishwarya quite a lot, even having an website on her. Point is, I have never heard her being called with the 'ice' sound - it has always been with 'sh' sound. Unfortunately, I have always heard her name being used in Hindi or English context (interviews, news reports, and award functions, where she herself is present). I am not sure if the logic is correct that since she is South Indian, she should be called with her South Indian name (quite apart from the fact that I am not so sure she is pronounced with the 'ice' sound in South India) - the word is basically Sanskrit! So going by how most people in India call her, I think her pronounciation should have the 'sh' sound. GrubStreet 13:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm South Indian and am fairly sure that the pronunciation should be something like /aɪɕʋərjɑː/--Grammatical error 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with IPA. But I know for sure what the pronunciation is. It should be 'eye-sh-were-ya rye'. Somebody please change it to reflect the correct pronunciation. As for Gurubrahma's assertion that it is pronounced 'ice' in S Indian languages, I can tell you that it is WRONG. It may be true of telugu and tamil and maybe malayalam, but it is certainly not true of Kannada and Tulu. Both these languages use the Kannada script and we read/pronounce what we write and write what we say/pronounce.

filmography

somebody add her list if films

Removed "update"

Hi, Anorion -- I removed your update, and also the sentence re "highest-paid actress in Bollywood". Since the pay was said only to be rumour, and since you have a counter-rumour, it's probably prudent to remove the sentence. But the update was also a series of rumours. Rivalry with Sushmita Sen? Romance with Vivek? I dunno. Shabd may not be a hit, but that doesn't mean her career is on the skids. She's still being treated like the queen bee by Rediff.com and Sepia Mutiny, the sites I read. Not to mention all the fanboys on rec.arts.movies.local.indian, on Usenet <g>. Zora 18:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok

actually i tried to edit something someone else had already done... were you that guy? Anyway, I knew it didn't come out too well... the thing with sushmita, if it is a rumour, then it is a long standing rumour. She is known for that, it is a part of all the things associated with her, and therefore, it must be put. What about, "it is rumoured that, there has been a rivalry..." A line like "she is currently dating Vivek Oberoi" would not be too much out of place, as both of them have almost agreed to it on media... especially vivek oberoi. and the line "highest paid actress" remains.

I did edit out the highest-paid actress -- do you need to refresh or update your browser's view of the page?

As for rumors re rivalries, romantic involvements, etc. -- I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for gossip-column stuff. That is just too easily available elsewhere. I do agree that sometimes it's important. We've got the Nargis-Raj Kapoor liason noted in their articles, because it was long-standing and it helps to understand the films they did together. I don't think Dharmendra-Hema Malini is noted, but that might be relevant. Amitabh-Jaya Badhuri is relevant, and noted. Aishwarya-Salman Khan is noted on Salman's page, just briefly ... hmmm. How about saying something like, "Aish has many fans, and Aishwarya gossip is a staple of entertainment columnists. She is one of the best-known bachelorettes in Bollywood, and her romantic adventures (romances with Bollywood stars Salman Khan and Vivek Oberoi) have been followed with breathless interest."

Or something like that. That does sound gossip-column, doesn't it? Zora 03:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edited text reverted without explanation

Yesterday I reorganized the text and added a para re Bride and Prejudice. An anon editor then seems to have reverted it to the version just before mine, without noting WHY. I didn't think that the changes I had made were so very controversial, and can't imagine why they were reverted. I just now restored my edited text, but kept the revised filmography, on which the anon editor has been working hard.

If there's something wrong with my rewrites -- and I'll admit that I'm not perfect (d'oh!) and that it's well within the realm of possibility that my edits could use correction -- I'd like to talk about it. Editors should communicate, not ignore each other. Zora 18:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Eyes

Something should be said about her eyes. --Error 00:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

She's got eyes <g>. I don't see the point of going into rhapsodies over her physical features. Surely they're obvious to those who care to google for pictures. There a lots of other beautiful people in the world ... Zora 00:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about her eyes if there is more information. Do her parents have light eyes, or are hers recessive? --Speakslowly 03:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I gather that she had an uncle who had blue eyes, I've seen pictures of her brother and parents and certainly by Indian standards they are very fair although not as fair as she is - but they appear to have dark eyes and hair unlike her, she has chestnut hair. The genes for Blue eyes (in fact hers are a sort of Blue Green but the genes for Green eyes while dominant over Blue and Grey eyes are recessive to the genes for Yellow, Hazel, Brown and Black), broadly speaking there are 2 main types of gene one for Blond eyes and the other which is normally dominant for Dark Eyes - there are further genes which sort of fine tune the colour - anyway there have been cases that clearly are not due to adultery in which parents have apparently had children which do not fit conventionally into the pattern thought to be likely to be due to failures in recombination resulting in dominant genes not working properly resulting in fairer eye colours, apparently usually in the next generation as a result of recombination occuring correctly then someone with 2 Blue Eyed Parents could end up with a Brown or Black eyed child, because the genes for blonder eyes are recessive someone with dark eyes can have one and yet have Hazel\Yellow\Brown\Black eyes themselves so it might be that both of her parents have the genes that would cause this or that one does and there has been a problem during recombination or that there has been a rather freakish occurence of more than one gene failing to recombine properly, the probability is one of the first 2, anyway there is a Wikipedia article here on the subject of Eye Colour\Color.--Lord of the Isles 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Her chestnut hair is result of highlighting. Her natural hair color is black (dark brown).

Ok, I personally doubt that Aish's eyes and hair are natural...because i once saw couple of Aish's child pictures and she was quite dark (skin complexion) and had dark hair and eyes too...which is understandable since she is of South Indian origin, I will try to find those pics again! BTW, it is common for many Bollywood actors/actresses to wear coloured contacts.

Luckyj 03:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, her eyes are an interesting feature. Maybe she inherited the recessive gene for light eyes from some distance European ancestors? We know that Northern India and Pakistan are known to have been invaded by ancient European invasions, and even as recent as Alexander the Great reached what is today Northern Pakistan. Koalorka (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Northern India and Pakistan were invaded by Europeans in ancient times. You must be under the false impression that "Aryans" (Iranians) were Europeans. As for Alexander's supposed invasion, that would be in modern day Pakistan, not southern India where Rai is from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.166.238 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

Criticism section

I don't know what of that was true... but, it was a highly POV piece, which, I don't object to it being put encyclopedically... but, stuff like that should be sourced because of its controversial nature (and people's willingness to fake it). gren 01:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your call, Gren. That sort of anonymous venom doesn't seem encyclopedic. We should note real controversies that get lots of press coverage, but this stuff doesn't count. Zora 04:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I edited the first part about her "being hailed as the most beautiful woman in the world on 60 Minutes". This statement was highly inaccurate as neither Bob Simon, nor the producers of 60 Minutes were "hailing her as the most beautiful woman in the world"; they were giving their viewers a chance to judge for themselves. She was, in fact, only interviewed, and not "hailed" by Simon. Also, her interview on 60 Minutes, The Oprah Winfrey Show, and David Letterman, was in fact, generated by the international media's curiosity in all things Bollywood AND of Ms. Rai, since Gurinder Chadha made it world-known that she was to star in her next venture. The West's curiosity in Bollywood is only an astute observation due to the fact that Indian films are thrust into the midst of Western culture by way of television (asian channels), musicals/parodies (Lloyd Weber/Rahman production of Bombay Dreams) and world/popular music (rifts of Indian music within rap, and other genres of Western music). However, it is chronologically true that Aishwarya Rai was interviewed on 60 Minutes AFTER her fans (mostly Indian; there is an article which provides substantial evidence, http://ww1.mid-day.com/news/world/2004/january/74149.htm) propped her status to #1 in the rankings in the Hello! Magazine poll. After watching the segment on 60 Minutes, it was perfectly clear that she was not being "Hailed as..." but was being interviewed in the same context as any "novelty" would be introduced if it had a certain status somewhere else which generated enough interest to be examined by others outside of the novelty's normal realm. It is much to the discredit of her overly zealous fans who blur the lines of reality and write exultations and falsities for the sake of masking their adoration of her as "fact" or for the sake of condensing the actual facts, as they were. This is an encyclopedia and the facts need to be adhered to in all forms. Note: beauty never becomes a fact, it is ALWAYS an opinion no matter how many people proclaim it, and that too only in the eyes of the beholder(s). i.e. it would be wrong of me to write a Wikipedia entry on Audrey Hepburn exulting her, writing that she was one of the only actresses in her time who's natural beauty exuded onto her visage, something which one does not see in today's actresses. No matter how much I (and others) think this is true, it does NOT become a fact, it is only an opinion. Encyclopedias should not become shrines for over-zealous fans who wish to contribute something about their favourite celebrity. Perhaps they should start a fan webpage or contribute to an existing one.

bio section from imdb

The latter part of this bio is taken word for word from this IMDB page. AKeen 04:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oy. This article is really getting trashed. I haven't had time to take out the load of stuff an anon dumped, some of which is new and some of which isn't. Now we find that half of it is a copyvio. Fanboys! Zora 04:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the list of facts copied from IMDB from the bottom of the page. AKeen 20:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax?

The filmography lists

2002 : Nee Kidappen Njan Adippen: The Power by Krishna Vamshi

I have my doubts wrt the language of the movie (as Krishna amshi has directed movies only in Telugu and Hindi). Could it be a dubbed version of Shakti:The Power???--Gurubrahma 16:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

///

This is not to be added anywhere or taken as fact (that's why it's in the hoax section). I'd just like to say that there's no other woman in the world best fitted to be Wonder Woman in the future movie. I insert this info here because Ash has actually been mentioned by a few, so she may be a runner-up. The part would demand: a notch further than "drop-dead gorgeous" (AR is), exotic looks (AR has), stunning well-filled body (ditto), good height (AR is 1,70m), a somewhat different accent, as WW is greek (AR speaks more than 4 languages), never a totally white American woman, as WW is Mediterranean (AR has that beautiful - natural? - tan), and also an experienced actress (dunno about AR skills on that, but she sure is experienced).

Just useless 2 cents to be thought about. (anon, non-English speaker)

Film Fare top 10 list

Can we have the year and provenance of this piece of information? Who else was in the list? Is Ash that big in the West? Autumnleaf 14:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Dunno about the top ten list. I probably should have checked. However, I do believe that Ash is sorta big in the West. Speaking as a foreigner. If she's chosen to appear on talk shows, she has some celebrity they want to exploit. However, it's minor celebrity. When her romantic entanglements start getting US airplay, she'll have made it to major celebrity. Zora 20:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

i doubt she'll have any romantic entanglements with anyone other than an indian actor. and, as far as being "big in the west", she has been blown up by the indian media (namley, the times of india publication) and therefore caught the attention of the west so quickly; before she was thrust upon the cannes film festival, no one had ever heard of her outside of the indian movie watching population.

Fionalargo's edits

Fiona worked very hard on the article, and I was sorry to erase her efforts. However, we really can't let the actor/actress articles turn into fan appreciation forums. We have to be stuffier and staider <g>. Zora 19:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Spurious additions

It is not encyclopaedic to begin to list each poll of 'beautiful women' which lists Ash; this page will quickly clog up as would hundreds of others on Wikipaedia. Please take note. Have made changes to keep things sensible - this is NOT a fansite. Autumnleaf 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Languages and boyfriends

It is simply not notable that Ms. Rai speaks several languages -- many people in India do. We don't routinely include language repertoire in every actor biography. As for who she is or is not seeing right now -- that's gossip column stuff, NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC MATERIAL. Zora 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable isn't the most important criteria, verifiability is. And yes, while we don't need to include all trivia, the languages someone speaks are a reasonable biographical fact. It also takes up very little space. That not every other biography contains it doesn't make it useless. Including who she is dating depends on the source. If it is from a gossip column that clearly doesn't meet WP:V, but if it was from a highly reputable publication or from an interview with her, makes it much more reasonable to include. I don't know the source on the dating bit that was included, but I would guess it wasn't on the highly reputable side. So in short I agree with you on the dating, but disagree on the language. - Taxman ^Talk 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of listing the languages she speaks? To make her look smart? It's simply not relevant to a biography, unless the number of languages spoken is extraordinary. Zora 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's biographically relevant, culturally interesting, and yes, does show without saying something unencyclopedic that she's not just a dumb supermodel. The same would go for some mention of longtime traditional dance training as a child which if there was a good source for would be good to add also. If this were some long diatribe I could understand your opposition to it, but it's not in the same category as useless fan ravings. - Taxman ^Talk 12:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to concur with Taxman on this one; however, I qualify my statement with WP:V on one side and WP:BITE on the other side. --Gurubrahma 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also with Taxman on this; simply, because it's a notable bit of infomation about her - and that's what Wiki is about. Just my naive, idealistic point of view on this. ;) --Plumcouch 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I took away two of the pictures. One of them was from Aishwarya-forever.com (their URL is written over it) and I'm not sure if we have their permission to display it here. Also, I took away the Cosmopolitan picture, because I feel three pix are simply to many. If Ash has three pix, every other Bollywood star can have that many pictures too and we would all be drowning in pictures. I know Ashwarya is more famous, than Isha Koppikar, for example, but allowing more pictures based on popularity of a person isn't exactly a very neutral way to do things. If they show something significant, like the TIME pic and someone would add another one where you can see Ash's face properly, I think it would be okay (given the fact that the pictures aren't copyvio), but simply, because it looks nice to have so many visual evidence on one article doesn't qualify as a reason to overload it. Even it's an article on someone so beautiful as Aishwarya Rai. Comments or Opinions? --Plumcouch 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we discussed this on the talkpage of WP:INCINE - the no. of pics would be proportionate to the length of the text but would be limited to three. Also, since ppl. keep adding images from all sort of places (just see the history), it is best to leave no place by having three well-sourced images - all of them are from magazine covers. The "Time" cover, imo, does not do justice to her billing as the most beautiful woman in the world, but it is needed for the article to hint at her growing international stature. Aishwarya-forever.com is not the URL but the cover story of the magazine, titled to hint that Aishwarya is going to be in the news forever, worldwide. may sound funny, but true. Also, this was the first and only image on the page when I started tracking it; I am loathe to remove it, because this would lead to clamour of rotating images regularly. I am all for removing the cosmopolitan image if we can get a well sourced image (magazine) portraying her in a saree, but till such time we need to retain these images so that it doesn't increase the janitorial work on removing other images that would surely come in. --Gurubrahma 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you visit aishwarya-forever.com, you will notice several Cineblitz and other magazine covers, all of them having "aishwarya-forever.com" as a title story. ;) I am quite sure that the Cineblitz cover was taken from "aishwarya-forever.com", especially since the font that was used to write "aishwarya-forever.com" on "our" Cineblitz cover differs from the font used on the rest of the cover, indicating that it has been added afterwards. If we want pictures of Ash in a Saree and maybe a nice headshot, I go and search for some. --Plumcouch 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Current picture is disastrously bad. It's too bright. Please change. Zuracech lordum 17:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

Hey i have this great pic of hers better than teh one present. Can we please change it??

What about either of these?:

<img src="http://www.hollywood-celebrity-pictures.com/Celebrities/Aishwarya-Rai/Aishwarya-Rai-2.JPG">

<img src="http://www.bhopal.net/bhopalinthenews/archives/Aishwarya%20Rai.jpg">

Relationships with Aishwarya Rai

Hello,

[ DELETED LINK SPAM ] is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Aishwarya Rai handles her relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitor to examine the characteristics of his own relationships with Aishwarya Rai.

Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research which gained vast popularity among web surfers.

I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whomever wishes to study Aishwarya Rai as broadly as possible.

I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force [ DELETED LINK SPAM ] on the authors of Aishwarya Rai's article.

However, I ask you - chief editors of Aishwarya Rai - to publish a link to [ DELETED LINK SPAM ] if you feel that it may be a valid resource for some of Aishwarya Rai's fans and researchers.

With appreciation, Midas touch 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no concept of chief editors as such. Whoever adds such links would be considered a spammer, sorry. --Gurubrahma 09:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Midas has seen fit to link spam the talk pages of numerous famous people bios. I deleted the link spam from this talk page. When they cannot get away with spamming the article they often focus on the talk pages. Before I am accused of not assuming good faith, look at his edit history and user page and tell me he is not link spamming Wiki. A casual glance of link related policies indicates using pseudoscience (astrology in this case) is not considered a reliable source for anything. Mr Christopher 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "dynasty icon"?

On 15 March 2006 I had updated some information in the "Personal Life" section, saying that tales of her marriage to Abhishek were doing the rounds. Fact or fiction, this was very much in the news, and day after day and in paper after paper the news and pictures were shown on newspaper frontpages and inside pages, with whole magazines being devoted to the topic. Apart from movies, the alleged alliance is the most talked about topic in Bollywood right now. I don't know why this part was omitted and the section was reverted to the previous condition. Just doesn't make sense, as it might be considered 'serious' within her personal life, especially since the far less talked about Oberoi affair is displayed with whom talks of MARRIAGE were NEVER in the air. Absolutely doesn't make sense. Living in India, reading stuff on her, and being an avid fan of hers (I even have a whole website on her), I do live Aishwarya more often that people ouside might do. Besides, I do not know what "dynasty icon" means, in context of Abhishek! I understand the implication and the innuendo, but I do NOT think there is any reason to bring that aspect of the actor's identification without providing sufficient context. Besides, the context does not deserve such identification. Perhaps the adjective could be removed. GrubStreet 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the revert was more to reduce the length - speculation should not be expanded upon - but it does not mean that the original version is correct. Feel free to edit it as you see fit, but try to keep it concise. --Gurubrahma 14:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is Vrinda Rai?

Okay, she is Aishwarya's mother. But is that qualification enough? I say Vrinda Rai with a new article request. I do not think she deserves any place in Wikipedia yet, unless she does something on her own. I have removed the 'link' or whatever you call it from the article. GrubStreet 11:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The trivia section in Dil Ka Rishta should explain a need fro link - though, personally, I feel that an article either on her brother or her mother is unwarranted yet. --Gurubrahma 16:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dancing

About that newly added "Dancing section": should we keep it? Most Bollywood actresses dance in their movies and lots of them are said to be excellent dancers (Madhuri Dixit for example, Shahrukh Khan is said to be a great dancer, as is Sushmita Sen, Rani Mukerji and Isha Koppikar with her Khallas-Item-Number. Furthermore, if someone tells me from which movie the picture right next to the dancing section is, I look for the copyright information. Regards, --Plumcouch 11:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Native language?

I agree too that listing her languages is significant biographical information. What I think would be even more significant is: which of them is her native language? Anyone know? - Reaverdrop 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

in tulu it was stated that she known tulu language also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.46.50.75 (talk • contribs) .

Tulu is a major language in Mangalore where she was born, but her own website omits Tulu from the list of five languages she speaks. - Reaverdrop 09:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tulu fan club keeps adding Tulu back to her languages, without ever providing a source. Her own website says she speaks five languages, and lists them, and Tulu is not one of them. Earlier at the Miss World pageant, she was indicated to speak two languages: Hindi and English. So far it's still two documented sources to zero that she does not speak Tulu. If someone has other documented information, please share with us. - Reaverdrop 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... Never mind. In her appearance on Dave Letterman she says Tulu is her mother tongue. She might want to talk with her website... - Reaverdrop 07:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This has continued to be a topic of debate, so for reference, a clip is available here of Ash on Dave Letterman saying Tulu is her mother tongue. - Reaverdrop 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Heading image

70.71.234.81 reverted to the 2005 image at top on the rationale that the 2006 image "doesn't show the face clearly". However, the 2006 image is GNU-licensed, while the 2005 image is copyrighted by the AFP under claim of fair use. I think the fair use is solid, but I also think we should opt for licensed images when possible; in fact, the ready availability of a licensed option weakens the argument for fair use. Besides, I don't think it's any worse a picture. But I thought it was a close enough call to get a few other opinions before settling on one image. Anyone? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears suspect whether this 2006 image is actually covered by a GNU-license or has just been incorrectly tagged as such by the uploader. The uploader hasn't provided any information to confirm copyright ownership and anyone can obtain an image and slap a GNU license tag on it. They also uploaded a promotional photo from Mistress of Spices under a GNU-license. It's unlikely they have the authority to release this image under GNU license unless they work for the studio which produced this film. Right now, this appears to be a case of incorrect license tagging for both of the newly uploaded images. Unless the uploader can provide proof of his/her copyright ownership, I don't think the 2006 image should be considered to have a GNU license.Santress 08:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oscar?????

when was devdas nominated for oscars????? removed the line Sidmohata 03:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Thanks for removing that inaccurate statement. Devdas was selected by the Film Federation of India to submit to the Oscars for consideration as best foreign film, but was not selected for nomination. India's submission from the previous year, Lagaan, received a nomination for the Oscar. See List of India's official entries to the Oscars. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDb Aishwarya Rai -Filmography errors- issue to take note

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706787/ The item number 42 of her filmography cited on IMDb which is directly linked by WP under 'External Links' is wrong. She never acted in the telugu Movie called 'Mamagaru' by the character name 'Rani'. 'Aishwarya' in mamagaru' is unknown telugu actress of the 90's and has no physical or other facial similarities with the actress Aishwarya Rai as this article deals in. What Kind of Physical Evidence is to be produced before WP registered Users before they can take notice of this glaring mistake.Eventhough WP is not responsible for IMdb's accuracy of filmography it is something to be considered by all registered users and participating voters of WP when IMDb is the WP 'Standard' for reporting or citing Filmography of all actresses/actors irrespective of the actual facts which can be found on more accurate sites on Indian Cinema. ..Anon Alleged Vandal of DiaMirza Article.

I did some googling on that Mamagaru movie and IMDb is not the only one who lists the movie as Ash's first. (see here:http://www.nndb.com/people/383/000045248/ for example). Maybe IMDb mixed up something about because apparantly, Aishwarya Rai was only credited as "Aishwarya" and they confused her with an actress which is regularly credited as "Aishwarya". There is a comment over at IMDb which says that the movie features "a very young Aishwarya" in bad light. I think she played in that movie. --Plumcouch 14:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

-Well i being active member of Ash-forever rented vcd of the Movie 'Mamagaru' in telugu and watched the full length of it and has seen titles and the actress. It is not her. Since Personal research is not approved means of information for WP Policy What can be done by me to prove this point..Or is it a policy of WP that it doesn't matter if IMDb has right or wrong information? One method is to contact 'Aishwarya Rai' official site to check the filmography or to contact or gather information of the movie from the Producer of the movie who today is a politician in the country. ..Anon Alleged Vandal of DiaMirza Article.

Well, all right, then it's not her. I checked the Ashwarya-forever.com-boards myself, and it looks like Ash got confused with some Telugu actress, so then just leave it out. I could send a from to IMDb so they'll remove it. Best regards, --Plumcouch 14:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

---I think the job of suggestion was made many a time by the Admns and Moderators of Ash-forever boards..but IMDb turned a blind eye to it...ANon alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

Aishwarya Rai Fans

Aishwarya Forever and Multimedia Link

http://www.aishwarya-forever.com/multimedia/2005tv.html The above link is cited as reference. The referred site is a 'commercial or fansite' Which makes it a bad site as per WP policy. Morever the said tv show in the multimedia section is in direction violation of copyrigths which i presume are held by the CBS channel which broadcasted the show. If such is the case is it acceptable to link a copyright violating fansite as reference number 15? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

The problem is, the editors have found no in-copyright source for the info; and the info is spoken by Ash herself in the reference, so is both an irreplaceable source, and strictly unavailable outside the copyright. That makes a strong case for fair use and for keeping the link in Wikipedia. Describing an element of information in a copyrighted work does not violate a copyright. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said WP violated any copyright. I only asked you will WP link copyright violating sites?(in this case there is no othe alternative). As far as i know 'fair use' is a principle invoked when somebody accuses you of Copyright violation. News papers/tc channels all others run on this principle. WP doesn't violate any copyright here by linking the said reference or by stating simply the fact. So the question of 'fair use' doesn't arise. It is only that i am interested in knowning whether WP doesn't mind copyright violation links on its page. And the answer seems to be 'yes' when there is no other verifiable source. ..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

I'd say: No, Wikipedia doesn't link sites who violate copyrights. Most sites which *do* violate copyrights are fansites anways and News Sites, such as BBC or Rediff own the pictures and texts they display, so they are accepted. Meaning, technically, we cannot accept Aishwarya-Forever.com as a source, since it's an unofficial fansite. --Plumcouch 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

...Since two registered users are having conflicting view points here i suggest they discuss the matter on their respective talk pages and come to a democractic consensus on the matter..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

Opening para, personal info

I edited down the opening para, which fans had crammed with reports of polls she is alleged to have won, praise said to have been offered by media figures, etc. That's just not appropriate. It's fan gush.

I also toned down the personal info section -- again. In the version I modified, Salman Khan was accused of assaulting her on the set of a movie; what I've read is that he barged onto the set and made a scene. That's a big jump, from being a jerk to committing assault, and it isn't referenced. These are LIVING people and we have to be careful not to make scurrilous charges. Zora 06:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I plan to remove sections related to her dating with Vivek Oberoi & Abhishek Bachan. We should not write personal life of living persons based on Gossips when it was denied by her.She has given few interviews regarding Salman Khan so it may be included. --Lravikumar 14:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Springcleaning

The article seems to have been chopped and mangled. I edited for smoothness again. Zora 08:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

good title image

i think that this page needs a good title image (the one at http://pakistantimes.net/2005/09/13/aish_pic.jpg is probably an ideal one, and it is authentic too) but when i tried to put it on i couldnt and i have problems with the licensing part. can plz someone put that pic on (dont forget to check it out its great and really decent). Thanks. Birdeditor 15:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that one is entirely unsuitable. As Aishwarya Rai is a living person, we are only permitted to use free images. That image is a copyrighted image and not released under a free license, thus is unsuitable. --Yamla 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Filmography table

Hello, everyone, just noticed the changes in Rai's filmography. None of th featured articles notes co-stars (I think they belong into the movie's article) and therefore, I think they should be deleted. Opinions on that? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Queen of Bollywood

Shez, defending Rani's "title" as Queen, removed the title from Aish's article. But wait! A check with google shows 24,000 hits for the term "Queen of Bollywood" and it seems that the following actresses and singers have been dubbed "Queen of Bollywood":

Aishwarya, Rani, Asha Bhosle, Lata Mangeshkar, Priyanka Chopra, Kajol, Preity Zinta, and Helen. And that's only looking at the first few screens of the google results.

It seems to be a slang term for whoever is deemed to be the top actress/singer/dancer, a matter which is hotly debated by fans, and CANNOT be taken as belonging to any one actress. Hence I reverted Shez's partisan attack on an actress he sees as Rani's rival. I will go to Rani's article and change the language there accordingly. Zora 22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I always thought Rani was better looking.--D-Boy 06:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Which still doesn't qualify her as Queen of Bollywood, since it's NPOV. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictograph

Hey, I found an illustration on Flickr, licensed under CC-A. It isn't a photo, but I think it is a fair likeness, until someone can find another free use image. - Francis Tyers · 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

for reference this is commons:Image:Aishwarya Rai.jpg . This has been removed and replaced with a less free image once already. I am a tad sceptical that this is a real drawing, not a manipulated photo, but I do not have the experize to tell. If it is a manipulated photo then the original copyright may stand and the image may still be copyrighted. GameKeeper 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right of course. See my discussion here. Some things are too good to be true I guess :( - Francis Tyers · 09:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bant or Bunt community

I removed the refs. Before anyone puts them in again -- isn't that a caste reference? Don't we refrain from mentioning caste on WP, unless someone is known as a spokesperson for a particular caste? Has Aishwarya claimed to be a Bunt? If so we should quote her. Zora 23:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bunt is not a caste you nitwit. Bunt refers to a community of farmers/landowners in Mangalore, Karnataka. She is probably a Kshatriya woman although some speculate she is Brahmin just because she is fair-skinned which I think is ridiculous because she eats meat, and well, she's an actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MySpace account

This myspace account has been repeatedly linked www.myspace.com/aishrai111 . It is obviously fake. The 'proof' in the photo section is a badly digitised signiture overlaid on the url of the account. This is not sufficient proof. GameKeeper 14:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Then what is sufficient proof for you?

• Yes it is an advertising Gimmick run by pyzam .com .Its a fake site and the user Aishrai should be banned for Misleading the people with this Publicity site for their own Benefit--Cometstyles 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The following was left on my talk by user:Aishrai. It does not offer further proof. GameKeeper 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC) _{Hi, I got your message about the myspcae....etc. But Aishwarya Rai does have an official myspace account. www.myspace.com/aishrai111 This is her official account! She has proof on her account! Please check it out and then comment back! If you do allow to keep the message on the Aishwarya Rai page, then please can you write down that this is the official myspace page. Thanks}

The following page was added by user:Aishrai GameKeeper 14:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC). Talk:Aishwarya Rai/Comments

The MySpace link definitely looks fake. Anyway the profile's been set to private, what's the point in adding the link, even if it were real? And MySpace profiles don't really have to be in the article, do they ... unless they have some important information? NithinBekal 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Vanessa Hudgens' article has her myspace on it! That does NOT have any important information, what so ever!

I'm well aware that MySpace has fake actor accounts. I joined MySpace just to look at Nathan Fillion's MySpace and extremely intermittent blog, and he in turn opened his own account because he was angry that an imposter had cockaroached his name and was pretending to be him. I gathered that this has happened to a fair number of actors. Zora 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I didn't know it was fake! Please can everyone STOP blaming me! I was just trying to advertise the myspace for her![[User: Aishrai]

You repeatedly added the link to this page, even after others removed it and after I explained why it was unsuitable on your talk page. You did not validate it was not fake. You are to blame. Please be more careful in future. GameKeeper 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But, I didn't know, that it was actually fake! I thought the signatures were real!

It is not being misled that is the problem. When you add something to wikipedia, if it is reverted do not just add it again! Seek Consensus by discussing on the talk page. GameKeeper 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, can you add it as a fan page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.117.4 (talk • contribs).

No. Fansites are generally inappropriate. See WP:EL. --Yamla 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Thats not a good enough reason!

Karela's awards list

Karela keeps restoring a list of trivial and ephemeral awards, without any references. I don't think awards should be listed if they're not notable and referenced. Notable means that, at the very least, the issuing organization has a WP article. If they're not notable enough for an article, then the award has no real value. I would tighten it even further and say that the award has to have an article. Filmfare awards have an article, just like the Oscars. If the organization maintains a website with lists of awards given, then no references need be given -- it's easy enough to check an entry. However, if the organization doesn't maintain a roster of awards given, then there should be a reference, online or published by a reputable press, for the award.

If I had an article (which I don't), then I could claim that the Homeowners' Association of Lower Makiki gave me Best Garden of the Year Award for 2006. There's no such association or award, but who could tell if references aren't required? Zora 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Aishwarya and Salman khan

When Salman khan and Aishwarya broke their relationship.Did Salman leave Aishwarya or Did Aishwarya leave Salman.

The whole Personal Life section seems hugely biased and contains statements that, to me, look as if they were maliciously inserted by a rabid Salman fan. I'm a noob at this, so I won't even venture to remove everything that seems slanderous or unnecessary, but if someone more adept wants to cleanse the article, I think it would benefit from a more impartial attitude towards the subject. This isn't a place to air senseless grievances against people we don't really know, people.

Aishwariya Bachchan

I Like that name It Sounds so Good. It's a Good thing that they (Aishwariya Rai & Abhishek Bachchan) have Finally Got Engaged. I hope She Doesn't Quit Acting Movies Because she said that She Might After She Gets Married on February 19th. Cometstyles ^talk

I know it's big news, but please don't add the Bachan onto her name until we see pictures / hear a statement. Sumit Desai 22:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When they do get married, it'll be fun to call them as "Abhiwarya" like how Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are named "Bradgelina". --Bhavesh.Chauhan 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it looks like that but my message above was not directed to cometstyles, unless you were the one who added Bachan. Just to clarify Sumit Desai 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please add a picture of Aishwarya...its important to have her picture up..come on now..

Is it possible to add this foto? [1] Ciddler 15:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. This would be a blatant violation of WP:FU. --Yamla 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Concerning a photo for this Article, I contacted the President of Canyon Entertainment regarding a photo for this article. I still have to explain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ciddler (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

The President requested me for a link to the actual article and has to be sure that the photo used will only be included in this article. How can we make sure that is possible?? --Çiddlər 07:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, these terms are unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for information on how to request an image which can be modified and used by third parties without restriction. --Yamla 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He informed me that free use rights will be granted for one color photo as depicted on the imdb.com website for Aishwarya Rai. As long as the photo is used ONLY in this article and the link Entertainment must appear on the article page. If Wikipedia can agree to these terms and can honor the legal right to honor the agreement, we can use one photo. ----Çiddlər 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No. As I have previously pointed out, these terms are not acceptable. --Yamla 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also known as Ash

I've removed the sentence "Also knows as Ash" from the lead. I feel "Ash" is not so popular alias to have a mention in the introduction para. Comments/suggestions? Gnanapiti 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that a lot of people use Ash as a nickname for Aishwarya. I suggest that it is left in the article. Maybe in brackets, since it's only a nickname and not common to everyone. (Çiddlər 10:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

The Filmography

The film order has been totally changed into a wrong orcer. The last film of the year (2007-Guru) (1997-Iruvar) is actually the first film released in the year not the ones above it.

Until it is sorted out, I will revert the table so viewers don't get confused

When something is done, it should be done properly not using tools.

Prince Godfather 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Can we get this article protected? A lot of new people just come on here and write how ugly she is or change info and add pictures. A protection would prohibit that and assure that we don't have to revert something every day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ciddler (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

its too early to seek a protection. Wait for some more edits.

How many more? ----Çiddlər 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

At least 8 acts of vandalism in 2 days. Is protection justified now? ----Çiddlər 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection. We'll see if that helps at all. --Yamla 17:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

j

Picture?

Why is there no picture? She is arguably one of the most beautiful models / actresses in the world, and we don't have a picture of her? Yamla, can't we find a picture of her can falls under the Wiki Fair use rule? --Aadam 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has yet contributed a freely-licensed image but there's no doubt that one could be created. --Yamla 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have this image of Aishwarya Rai which comes under Wiki fair use and this is the discussion that took place about adding that image to the article. Gnanapiti 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use images, such as that film screen capture, may not be used to depict a living person. That rules them right out of infoboxes. --Yamla 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You actually need lots of protection for this site because people just come and put on stupid stuff in about her. THEY SHOULDNT DO THAT!

Wikipedia has some stupid ass rules about pictures. A beautiful women like this deserves a pic! Manic Hispanic 04:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Great picture, I approve of it. Better than nothing, eh? ----Çiddlər 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I love that picture that I took of her during trhew bride and prejudice premiere in NY city (Aishwaryarai3.JPG‎) but it got replaced by a heavily photoshopped picture of aishwarya rai which is not even free use. No wonder people will think all photos of aishwarya rai are fake and photoshopped. At least my picture should be put somewhere in the article. She looks amazing, perfect in every way and that is an untouched picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejayonur (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name

I am moving here the following discussion that I started on the page of the admin who moved this page to the new name. A survey follows below. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you recently moved Aishwarya Rai to Aishwarya Bachchan. I know that since the former article has not yet been edited since the move that there are no technical limitations that would prevent me from moving it back, but given that you are a respected admin, and I consider myself very above board, I would much rather discuss the situation with you than take a unilateral action. Please let me first state that I do not have a particular high interest in the article and have no real biases in this article. You will note that I have only ever made 6 edits to the article and one to the talk page, mostly maintenance in nature. Obviously, the subject of the article has gotten married and I note that there are 3 sources for the name change at the very start of the article. However, I think that the article should remain at Aishwarya Rai based on WP:COMMONNAME. There are many fine examples at this link that explain why articles such as William Jefferson Clinton, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and James Earl Carter, Jr. redirect to Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Jimmy Carter, respectively. Despite the fact that the longer names are more "correct" or "proper", they are simply not going to be used in searches as frequently as the shorter, more common names. Just a bit of data here.... when searching for Aishwarya Rai on Yahoo gives 10,900,000 hits vs. Aishwarya Bachchan 1,950,000 hits, and "Aishwarya Rai" gives 5,040,000 hits vs. "Aishwarya Bachchan" 1,410 hits. Please consider returning the page to the more common name. I'll watch this patch for your reply. Respectfully --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like this really should be discussed on the article's discussion page itself. I have no problem if this is the consensus of the other articles. I have only a very weak opinion on this matter at all. My understanding from reading the citations is that she will be known as Bachchan from now on, but even if this is the truth, it does not necessarily mean that the appropriate article title is with that last name. Could you please bring this up on the article's discussion page? --Yamla 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the proposal (to return article name to Aishwarya Rai)

1. Support per my comments above. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support until her new name receives significant traction, if it does. Hornplease 12:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support as per above. --Effer^AKS 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Article should be moved back to Aishwarya Rai till Bachan becomes common and popular name. Article names should be in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Gnanapiti 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support Most of the world knows her as Rai. I strongly doubt whether she changes her name commercially to Bachchan. Since her wedding no-one of her upcoming films has released yet, so we can't decide. As said by User:Effer, until Bachchan receives significant traction, we can't use it here on Wikipedia. Plus, every other net source uses Rai. --Shshshsh 22:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Support From WP:NAME, Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognise. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong Support 'Aishwarya Bachchan' is much more difficult to remember than 'Aishwarya Rai' for Westerners, so I think she'll continue using Rai in the west. We should wait and see until she's released another film. BokuAlec 12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• As noted above, I have no strong feelings one way or another. Unless someone comes out firmly in favour of leaving it at Aishwarya Bachchan, I'm quite happy to see it move back. --Yamla 04:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose

There's no argument. If it's a legal name change, there shouldn't be any survey. As the actress stated, it's going to be Aishwarya Bachchan from now just like Jaya Bachchan. No one calls her Jaya Bhaduri. And if the actress doesn't have a problem with it, neither should we. Thanks. --User:shez_15

Aishwarya Rai is in common use, most of the world doesn't even know that she legally changed her last name to Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai is still in common use, so the article's name should be changed to "Aishwarya Rai" as per WP:COMMONNAME. --Effer^AKS 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I stumbled upon this discussion since I watch Yamla's page to help stem the tide of vandalism to her pages -- :) -- and have no prior stake in this particular conversation. I am swayed by the apparent fact (no news to anyone here, I'm sure) that Aishwarya is now signing autographs with her new married name, unlike many other established starlets. My vote would be just to leave it as it is now, Aishwarya Bachchan. -- LeCour^T:C 04:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter if it's a common name because even if you type Aishwarya Rai, the page gets redirected to Bachchan. So, what's the problem? Plus, her mother-in-law was famous by the name of Bhaduri but now her page has it Bachchan. People will just have to get used to that fact once her movies start releasing by the name of Bachchan. Plz don't change back the page to Rai, Bachchan is how she wants it and it's a legal name change, so we have no part to play except follow her wishes. --User:shez_15

We do not have to follow her wishes. Till the majority of people start calling her Aishwarya Bachchan we should not move the article to that name. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A strong support for this view. Unless there's a useful reply in a while, I'll move it back to Aishwarya Rai. Hornplease 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently she is more well known under Rai. Even if Bachchan becomes more popular in a month because of the legalities, it doesn't mean we change it now. We will change in a month. It isn't a complicated process. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

can we this pic frm the hindi wikipedia

Hindi article- http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%90%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 10:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No. That pic most probably is copyvio and ought to be deleted from hindi wikipedia too. Sarvagnya 10:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

we can use her pic from some poster of a film..cant we?? like in the wiki page on "mistress of spices" we have her pic we cud just use that to let people knw what she looks like.Charoo 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:FU. --Yamla 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a picture of me next to Aishwarya Rai at an airport. If I do some appropriate cropping, would this be a good contribution to the article? Sanjayhari 05:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can mention the proper source and satisfy free image criteria, yes. Gnanapiti 05:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead name

Hello, her name is given as Aishwarya Bachhan in both Devanagari and IPA. Could someone fix that to Rai? --WoodElf 08:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

Does anyone know what happened to her "personal" section? I saw it here yesterday, and it's not on history as deleted.

Aishwarya in Heroes

Some Bollywood blogs have been publicizing the junk rumor that Aishwarya is going to act in Heroes. But according to their official site, this is not true. So please don't add back rumors. Gnanapiti 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following material that is completely unreferenced and thus violates the Wikipedia policy about the biography of a living person. See WP:LIVING. If someone wants to document these allegations with reference to LEGITIMATE IMPARTIAL THIRD-PARTY SOURCES -- not fan magazines or gossip columns -- then feel free to return this material. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Accounting4Taste 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal life & Controversies

Aishwarya Rai's life has been full of controversies. She dated actors Salman Khan and Vivek Oberai before her wedding to actor Abhisekh Bachchan. Her turbulent relationship with Salman Khan filled gossip columns. Her parents lodged a complaint against him. Aishwarya Rai was under fire for a kissing scene in her Bollywood blockbuster Dhoom 2. A kissing scene from that movie starring Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan, has upset an Indian lawyer who has filed a criminal case against them, owing to their gutsy on-screen kiss and accusing them of obscenity. The Indian censor board released the movie with a "parental discretion" certificate.The case was filed in the court of judicial magistrate first class R. K. Batham by advocate Shailendra Dwivedi under Sections 292 (vulgarity) and 509 (derogatory to women) of the Indian Penal Code. Her husband Abhisekh Bachchan had also acted in that movie, but not opposite her.

Maxim Online

Aishwarya Rai was Maxim's hottest Bollywood babe. Someone please add this.(if there are any doubts, go to the website). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.103.47 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

Her name is listed as Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (Note:Neither Aishwarya Bachchan nor Aishwarya Rai) in cast of Jodha Akbar [2]. --KnowledgeHegemony 07:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is still not sure that this name will be the one which she will use afterwards. Please discuss first and then move. We have already discussed this. This credit can be quite isolated. Who knows? Maybe after that she will be again credit as before. We can't be sure of that. Actors are usually credited with different names. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms in the first paragraph: "Often touted as the most beautiful woman in the world," —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.255.109 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Peacock is when we describe her like that, but we don't; she is really often referred to as the most beautiful woman in the world and it is a fact. Also in Angelina Jolie's page, you can see that it is written that she is cited by popular media as one of the world's most beautiful woman. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

remove current image

it is very low resolution picture and not clearly visible Bindaas19 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

why no response from anyone - Bindaas19 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided a better, freely licensed, replacement. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

where can i get freely licensed images? - Bindaas19 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Flickr sometimes has some. They are not easy, though. Well over 99% of images posted on the Internet are not freely licensed. --Yamla (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Aishwary - is this a spelling error?

I've seen her name as "Aishwary" on the net. Is this a spelling mistake? 70.23.218.158 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. - KNM ^Talk 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mistress of Spices is listed as a 2006 film but also 2005?

The Mistress of Spices is listed as a 2006 film in the filmography but when I click on it it says a 2005 film. Is it listed correctly on this page or on the Mistress of Spices page? Please let me know.Maldek (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Pink Panther 2 releases on February 13, 2009 or February 6, 2009?

On this page (Aishwariya Rai) page it says the movie Pink Panther 2 releases on February 12, 2009 but the Pink Panther 2 wikipedia page says February 6, 2009. Please tell me which one is right. Thank YouMaldek (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

schönste frau der welt man richtig bombeeeeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.132.244.250 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Most beautiful ?!

I deleted (again) the "acclaimed as most beautiful" stuff from the lead para. I'm sure the fans will restore it within minutes, but just for the record: it's embarrassing fan drivel. You could say the same about hundreds of women, probably every model and actress listed here you could find some source who says that and cite it. The TV show listed as a "reference" for that doesn't "prove" anything. Her "Miss World" title is real and is cited. "Most beautiful woman in the world" is completely POV. Barsoomian (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, took all of 12 minutes for the revert. So I did it again. Please discuss it here.

And as a starting point: I'd never heard of her till last week, when I saw her in a movie and looked her up. Call me ignorant, but she's not that well known outside India. Barsoomian (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not a fan of hers, so I don't have any reason to go against it. But you have to look at it with somewhat more observation. We don't say "Aishwarya Rai is the most beautiful woman in the world" - we say that people call her the most beautiful woman in the world, and it is a fact which is very well sourced BTW. By adding that, we do not violate any policy, not POV and not OR. I will rewrite it now so that you calm. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's meaningless, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I could find "some people", or "many people" who say the same about hundreds, thousands of women. Google gives 210,000 hits for the phrase. Many, many different women come up. Notably, Elizabeth Taylor, Gisele Bündchen; neither of which have this phrase tacked into their Wiki pages. If you keep putting it in this page, why not add it to all the others who have equal claim? Or preferably leave it off ALL of them. Barsoomian (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Disciples keep putting this back. There is an "International media" section in the article where you can put the various accolades. But there are no grounds for declaring her "the most beautiful woman in the world" unless you QUALIFY THIS by stating WHO SAYS SO and preferably WHY they have any authority to make this pronouncement. Look for instance at the article on Josh Holloway. See this para:

In 2005, People Magazine named Holloway one of the "50 Most Beautiful People in the World." In January 2006, In Touch Weekly named Holloway the "hottest hunk" on television. In the same month, Holloway was voted the seventeenth sexiest guy worldwide by British readers of OK! magazine.

That's how you do this if you really want to. Don't just claim "most beautiful" and hide the details in a link. Barsoomian (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Barsoomian, you had removed it entirely; I have put it back in the "International media" section as you suggested. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I didn't have the knowledge or inclination to rewrite it myself.Barsoomian (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Checked back after a couple of months and it's back. So removed it AGAIN. I see it was put back at this change: [3], with the comment "(Add info. Has been discussed. Source is very valid. Re-add.)" Which is untrue since it is the same source and wording as used before, ("60 Minutes" is not an insitution certified as the arbiter of the world's greatest beauties) and has NOT been discussed at all. Except above, three months ago, where a consensus was reached to put this info, suitably qualified, in the internationl media section. Please leave that kind of worship for the fansites, not an encyclopedia. Barsoomian (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't say she is the most beautiful. We say she is often referred to as the most beautiful by media, which is TRUE. See her appearances on David Letterman and Oprah's shows in the US, you'll understand. And there's nothing unencyclopedic about that. See Jolie, a featured article, there's a very similar sentnce there. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is sickening fan adulation. Unencyclcopedic. And you lied about it being "discussed", and called me a vandal. So I find it very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. You just waited a while and sneaked it back in. Barsoomian (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No I did not wait, I've been out of Wikipedia for a considerable period of time. And when I came back, I did not notice its disappearance. For the record, I'm not at all a fan of hers. I also don't think she's the world's most beautiful woman, not even one of the most beautiful in the world, but she's often referred to by that title, and it's a fact, and there's nothing wrong or unencyclopedic about that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I give up. I'm not going to put up with threats and abuse, all to try to save a page that is only of interest to star-struck fanboys. Go ahead and turn it into a shrine. Barsoomian (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

The article begins with

Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan or Aishwarya Bachchan (Birthname: Aishwarya Rai,...

which flatly contradicts what the reference says. If she has never used the name "Rai-Bacchan", this article shouldn't invent the name. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Gurustill.jpg

The image File:Gurustill.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

GA

I think this could be ready for GA with a bit of work. Its come on leaps and bounds since I last checked. The content is basically there, just needs copyediting.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful or not?

The article does not claim the lady is beautiful or the most beautiful. It says she is CITED as that, and it is a FACT, which does not go against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in any way possible.

The sources prove it perfectly. They don't just call her like that, they also back up the claim that she is cited as the most beautiful woman often. I personally disagree with the so-called description, but it is my POV.

No reason to remove this. If Jolie can have it, this lady certainly can. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I question the credibility of the reference source, in saying that someone is the "most beautiful" ... every person who is in love says that about their lover. A thousand marketing departments would like to claim that about their product. The information is not reliable, not encyclopedic. I'm removing the claim in Jolie's article, which is equally bogus. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Piano non troppo (talk · contribs) view. There is no parameter for beauty. Not even reliable source can verify the beauty of any entity. Such an entry is quite unencyclopedic. Hitro talk 10:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldnt Often featured in lists of worlds most beautiful women make it a bit more NPOV? trakesht (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reread what I said. We don't claim she is the most beautiful. We claim she is cited as such. That IS SOURCED. If you believe that too is unnecessary remove the same statement from the Angelina Jolie article, which is a FA. Of course you won't do it. I suggest you to start an RfC about it on a different page or start an ANI. Again - saying she is cited as the ugliest or the most beautiful is NOT POV, it is a fact which needs sources. And it is sourced perfectly here. So please do reach consensus before removing something FACTUAL you just dislike. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record I don't think she is the most beautiful woman in the world, not even one of the most beautiful, but there is a fact that "she is cited" as such and it is very correct and relevant in her page. Even the source does NOT say she is THE MOST BEAUTIFUL. It says she is CITED as the most bweautiful by media everywhere. Resepect the facts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarkar Raj and Pink Panther

User adds overly positive reviews for Rai's performances in Sarkar Raj and PP, which were mostly not well received by critics. Adding two reviews, one good and one bad - when most of them criticise her is not done.

The user gives a laughable positive Buzz18 (!) review on PP, when many international critics were harsh on her. On Pink Panther, see reviews: LAT or USA Today or The Independent Critic.

On Sarkar Raj, in which she had a very small role which by nature does not deserve too many reviews, see Indiatimes or Sify or HT or The Hindu or Rediff.

Her roles in both these films were so minor that I don't think reviews are needed. But if they still are added, we have to decide which ones. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The so called "Laughable" reviews are by a noted critic Rajeev Masand who's criticsm has been used in other pages1234peace (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So? Do you really think anyone cares what his opinion of an American film is? Many international reviews bashed her. Why don't you add then all of them? I see you're a fan. When the critical reaction is mostly negative, that's what the article should show. And when she has almost no-roles in these films, no need to even have reviews. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

reviews: LAT mentioned by the user doesn' talk about rai's performance so considering it is out of question. whereas The Independent Critic. points towards the directors fault, not on her acting.1234peace (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The director's fault? a "largely wasted here" by Independent is far more important than Rajeev Masand's praises. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"wasted" is a reference to an action by the maker of the film not actor and are you being racist about the critics, just because he is an american1234peace (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling me racist, and also when I say an American critic's view is more important here? LOL!!! It is an American film, an American critic's view weighs more than an Indian's one. And I'm Indian, and very proud to be one.

And if you want Indian critics, Mid-day says the film "gives her nothing funny to say or interesting to do." and Rediff which says: "From the very moment her presence is revealed upon the screen, Ms Rai Bachchan's performance grates in every way that it can. It is difficult to decide whether her facial contortions or highly questionable accent are more out of place in a movie as intentionally farcical as this one" Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see you have now been blocked for SP. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)