Talk:Rani Mukerji/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Slight problem

Xc, the phrase "landed up in college all over again" in Early Work doesn't make sense since college is no longer mentioned in the whole paragraph. Her college and school-related concerns are in Personal Life. What to do? Please either change Early life to Background and add all the college and school mention there. I just don't think Early work implies to Rani's Career since it's so brief. Or if you have any other idea, do the changes yourself since I don't want to interfere with your fabulous job! - shez_15

My mistake - I was going to decide about that, but in looking for images and refs, forgot all about it :P

No, the reason I hadn't removed it that time itself was that sentence is needed to show that Biyar Phool was done while she was still in school, while Raja Ki Aayegi Baraat was done in college. That entire paragraph is needed to show that she did some film related work early on, but her career really took off only post-Ghulam.

I agree Early work as a section is pretty short, but so are several other sections. I'm working on it... content addition and rewriting is time-consuming, so changes will take a while to turn up on her page...

Right now I'm trying to figure out the best way to integrate In the media and Famous commitments into a coherent form.

None of us own this page, its our collective effort that's turned it out this well. Whatever changes you'd like to make, please do! Be bold! If theres anything that needs to be changed, that can always be worked out later on the talk page.

Happy editing!xC | ☎ 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent removals

There have been recent removals of content by Haphar (talk · contribs). Such large scale changes cannot be carried out without discussion. Whatever issues you have with the content, kindly discuss them on the article talk page - there have been edit wars on this page earlier over content. xC | ☎ 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All the additions of fancruft have been wothout discussion and in direct reversal to earlier disucssions on the topic. There is no need to mention every movie release of hers, nor eulogise her, and make studd up of 5 billion rs impact, she is not the sole actor in her movies and most of her hit movies have not been sole perfomances by her but have had co stars, also write ups on her "tanned look" being appreciated for a role, and her not being able to sign a movie due to date issues is not relevant. This is not a fan site but an encyclopedia that does not go into such fan related stuff. Haphar 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is ironic that an editor uses an edit summary 'please discuss before reverting them' when he himself has not bothered to even write a word on the article talk page - [1].

I also note that several films have been removed from the body of the article altogether - Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega, Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye, Chori Chori Chupke Chupke and Mujhse Dosti Karoge!. If there is any logic to these removals, we would all be grateful to hear it.

Haphar (talk · contribs) also commented in an edit summary that In the media - remove the section, everything the actors do is in the media. May I point Haphar to Angelina Jolie, a featured article which has a very well written (and massive) section titled In the Media.

Some dialogue on this talk page prior to such changes would be appreciated.

Regards,xC | ☎ 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Shifting reply from middle of my post to below. His reply was referring to my sentence when he himself has not bothered to even write a word on the article talk pagexC | ☎ 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

( please check the archives before making smart alack statements- Haphar 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Where exactly did you discuss these earlier disucssions on the topic? Because I don't find any edits from you in the last few months. In fact, you're comments indicate you haven't bothered to read the archives, because there has been extensive debate over the content in recent weeks.

As for the listing of (apparently unimportant) films, Angelina Jolie carries four sentences on Playing God , when clearly the film did not fare well financially or with critics (as per Playing God (film)). Instead of making these sweeping statements relying complete on your own personal bias, please discuss point one-by-one which movies, sections and/or anything else you believe does not deserve place in this article.xC | ☎ 15:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Xcentaur keep civil and stick to the topic without making personal allegations. Lets discuss the issue and not perceptions. If you want a discussion stay off the accusations and focus on the facts. So if you have been sticking to the Rani Hrithik and Shah rukh pages page, there is an obvious bias you have towards these actors. For your information this issue has been discussed to death earlier here.Before making accusations and going of the handle, you should go through the archives and do your homework. Yes the logic of removal of the films is that every film does not merit a mention in the main article there is a filmography section for that. The "main" films is what the article should refer to. 1 bad example does not justify the same information being updated here. I do not see you comenting upon biased and sweeping statements -like "establishing herself as the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood". ( among many) If we can stick to facts rather than fan like stuff it would help the article. Haphar 15:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) And going running to Shez15 just seems to confirm some facts, as he has been on this merry go round before. Haphar 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Xcentaur keep civil and stick to the topic without making personal allegations. - I find it funny that someone with such a large number of WP:CIVIL concerns on their talk page is issuing warnings to me.

there is an obvious bias you have towards these actors. - Just so you know, I have been working on the Bollywood articles in general. One glance at someones edit count does not give you the right to make such statements.

For your information this issue has been discussed to death earlier here. - I am well aware of that, since I was part of those discussions as well. I don't see your contribution to any recent discussions on article content, so what exactly are you trying to say?

1 bad example does not justify the same information being updated here - I do not see how it is a bad example. It is a very good example of how the main article must be balanced. Your removals only serve to create a strong POV in the article, biased towards showing her as a wholly successful actress. They do not maintain NPOV.

"establishing herself as the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood". ( among many) - you are misrepresenting what was in the article - establishing herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood. Nowhere is it said that she is the best. Secondly, that line was taken word for word from the lead of Angelina Jolie, which is a featured article. In fact, there is no ref there either. Here we have provided refs for that as well. That she is one of the best known and highest paid is a fact, if you wish to remove that from this article, then by the same logic, the lead of FA Jolie is POV. How is that possible?xC | ☎ 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As for running to shez, Plumcouch is away, Pa7 is on holiday, Zora has left Wikipedia and Ekantik is on wikibreak. The only editors working on this page are Shez, Shshshsh and myself. Therefore it seemed correct to inform them of the recent changes. I do not know what you were trying to imply by your sentence.xC | ☎ 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses to above

Xcentaur keep civil and stick to the topic without making personal allegations. - I find it funny that someone with such a large number of WP:CIVIL concerns on their talk page is issuing warnings to me.

To quote you " Instead of making these sweeping statements relying complete on your own personal bias". Is a statement you made about me, it is rude and If you make allegations/ are rude, you would be asked to keep civil. You also told half truths on the protect page ( ie he did not revert, this being two minutes after you left a comment on my talk page). You are being extremely uncivil. Please do control yourself as being rude and making accusations would not help resolve the issue.

there is an obvious bias you have towards these actors. - Just so you know, I have been working on the Bollywood articles in general. One glance at someones edit count does not give you the right to make such statements.

Well if one glance at my talk page allows you to make comments, why do you hold it against others to look at your fan following of ms Zinta, Mukerji and Mr's Khan and Roshan ?

For your information this issue has been discussed to death earlier here. - I am well aware of that, since I was part of those discussions as well. I don't see your contribution to any recent discussions on article content, so what exactly are you trying to say?

Well you are obviously not well aware and there are earlier discussions that you were not a part of. You might not be detail oriented but before reverting please do go through the archives.

1 bad example does not justify the same information being updated here - I do not see how it is a bad example. It is a very good example of how the main article must be balanced. Your removals only serve to create a strong POV in the article, biased towards showing her as a wholly successful actress. They do not maintain NPOV.

I am removing fan gush on trivial films , I removed lines that showed her "new tanned look" being appreciated and I removed roles that she could not do due to dates issue as that is not relevant. Removing all this trivia does not show her as succesfull, in fact it removes the attempted potrayal of her as a demi goddess that even her "tanned look" and turned down roles need to be discussed. And it might be a good example to you, it is a good example of a bad statement to me.

"establishing herself as the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood". ( among many) - you are misrepresenting what was in the article - establishing herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood. Nowhere is it said that she is the best. Secondly, that line was taken word for word from the lead of Angelina Jolie, which is a featured article. In fact, there is no ref there either. Here we have provided refs for that as well. That she is one of the best known and highest paid is a fact, if you wish to remove that from this article, then by the same logic, the lead of FA Jolie is POV. How is that possible ?

So you quote on your page that you do like the NPOV principle, please read it an example of the Beatles is quoted to show what is POV. This statement is a very good illustration of what is a POV. You can support it with whatever fan gush you want, but the fact is it is POV.

As for running to shez, Plumcouch is away, Pa7 is on holiday, Zora has left Wikipedia and Ekantik is on wikibreak. The only editors working on this page are Shez, Shshshsh and myself. Therefore it seemed correct to inform them of the recent changes. I do not know what you were trying to imply by your sentence

Again if you do your howmwork you would know. Shez has been told a large number of times to keep the fan content off the page. Pa7 and Plumchouch will be back, we can wait for them, they are certainly more balanced then shez on this topic and would be fine to resolve the issue.

Haphar 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I referred to the Playing God part as a good example, not the tanned look bit. I support the removal of the tanned look rubbish, all of that was slated for a cleanup anyhow. I am concerned about you throwing out valid content in trying to cleanup.

You can support it with whatever fan gush you want, but the fact is it is POV. - I do not see how it fangush. It is a statement similar (almost identical) to one in an FA level article. It is true, and carries a reference.

I well aware of Shez's behaviour, having worked with him and several other editors in the past few months.

You have yet not replied on any of the concerns I have raised below.xC | ☎ 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to raise some concerns-

1.It seems that there is a different set of rules for FA articles and another for non-FA articles. Examples-

1]Playing God (film) which has been given space on the FA Angelina Jolie. It is a commercial and critical failure. However it is still there. Here Haphar has removed certain (apparently) non-notable films from this page. Why is there this discrepancy?

2]In the lead of Jolie, there is the line has established herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Hollywood. without a ref at the end. This article had the exact same line, changing Hollywood to Bollywood, and provided references. Yet it was removed. Why is that?

3]Diane Keaton is an FA level article. In the lead, it is clearly written Keaton's films have earned a cumulative gross of over USD 1.1 billion in North America. However Haphar has removed the box office impact portion from the lead, stating less hype please- all the Rs 5 billion was not due to her drawing power in the edit summary. I wonder, why is it that FA Diane Keaton can have box office gross total in the lead while Mukerji cannot?

4]Removal of In the media section - Haphar has removed the In the media section completely, stating In the media - remove the section, everything the actors do is in the media. Jolie has a very large section In the media, and last when I checked, she is an actor as well. Then what exactly is the logic behind this removal?

2. Apart from these, I am also concerned with the current version of the article appearing strongly pro-Mukerji. We have no note whatsoever of her failures, for example Chori Chori (2003 film) has been removed from the article, which was a failure at the box office. Therefore the page as of now only talks of her successful films. I believe this goes against the policy of NPOV. Even Mother Teresa has a criticism section on her page. Therefore I do not see why a filmstar should be painted in such a strongly POV manner.

If Haphar, or any other editor, could allay these concerns, I would be grateful. Regards,xC | ☎ 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is rich that Xcentaur is commenting on my making the article more favorable to Rani and attacking my removal of the following statements/ sections and in the same breath Xcentaur is fighting for retaining the following statement :-

has established herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Hollywood.

Further Xcentaur goes on to say "However Haphar has removed the box office impact portion from the lead, stating less hype please- all the Rs 5 billion was not due to her drawing power in the edit summary. I wonder, why is it that FA Diane Keaton can have box office gross total in the lead while Mukerji cannot?"

And then says

Haphar has removed the In the media section completely

None of these lines removal shows Rani as less succesfull, in fact they are fangush that build her up. What shez 15 used to do earlier ( get every film of Rani's a mention) Xcentaur is attempting throught this subterfuge of having "criticism". Note this is despite Xcentuar not acting on peer feedback the Xcentaur requested for on this article . The peer feedback said pls have a criticsim section as this article is biased. Xcentaur does not want to add the criticism section for Rani and then claims removal of non notable films is making Rani seem less succesful. This despite the fact that the removed content also had gushing comments about her performance in these failed films making it appear like she was the lone saving grace of the films.

The Angelina exampe has just one film mentioned Playing God (film), while for Rani under this subterfuge Xcentaur had every dud film of her listed. Add one dud film if you feel like, but without any fan gush about her performance.

Well if Diane Keaton has a box office impact,- Amitabh Bachchan, Vinod Khanna, Shatrughan Sinha, Rajesh Khanna, Waheeda Rehman, Hema Malini,Dilip Kumar, Rekha do not, they might not be FA but they are Bollywood stars. And even in FA, Xcentaurs other point of reference Angelina does not have the line.

Haphar 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Xcentaur does not want to add the criticism section for Rani - when did I ever say that? Did you ever ask me? You are drawing your own conclusions. I would just like to point out that, just as done in Mother Teresa, criticism is usually inline with the text. WP:Criticism, while not policy or guideline, may give a few other ideas on how to incorporate criticism in the article. Kindly do not attribute words which I have never said to me.

You have not addressed the removal of the In the media section. Why the double standard?

they are fangush that build her up. - I do not see how including unsuccessful films of hers in the article builds her up. Could you please elaborate?

Note this is despite Xcentuar not acting on peer feedback the Xcentaur requested for on this article - The peer feedback is being acted upon. Perhaps you did not notice, but suggestions which have been dealt with have been struck through. This article is a work in progress, just as most (if not all) articles in WP are.

Regards,xC | ☎ 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it was suggested to you in the peer review for the article. It was some time back, and you have not acted upon it. so it does lead to a conclusion that you do not want to add the criticim section- considering the fact that you have made other changes to the article since the peer review.

Haphar 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Harphar

Harphar, what is your problem? Couldn't you at least be civil in your edits? Now, look what you've done, made us enter another useless edit war just when things were changing. Why couldn't you have discussed on the talk page as other editors have been doing in the past before editing? Anyhow, your edits seem partial to Rani Mukerji's success only. I think there is no actor in the world where he/she has not fared failure. Thus, it is important to integrate that information into the article. The Rs. 5 billion net doesn't just indicate that Rani has drawn all that money but her films have where she has been the lead for the most part. And the importance of a new look is extremely significant for a mention as that makeover made her popular all over again. For Bollywood, glamour is the core of their films and looks and clothes are noticed to a great extent. I believe the career section should not only talk about whether her films were a hit or a flop as those facts are already on the film's page. The article should talk about Rani as an actor if this is an encyclopedia which should note her chronology. For example, what important thing did she do in August 2005, she turned down Namesake. So, films she could not do, must be mentionned since it estimates how busy she was and why she left a great opportunity. Finally, roles are important. The preparation done is needed to be put into the article. So, please do not delete these statements. - User:shez_15

What is this?! Why have you blanked half of the page? Where is the career success? OMG, without any prior talk or discussion. I respect your opinions, but you have to share them before doing any further and of course so significant edits. Xcentaur, Shez_15, Pa_7 and myself took part in the building of the page. We discussed a lot. I just came. I have to look over this. I'll comment latter. Best Regards, Shshshsh 19:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL First make up your mind whether I have made her look less successful or more. Let Pa7 and Plumcouch come on board and we can look to have some balance here for currently all there was on the page was fan fare. This too has been discussed earlier there is no "blanking" but irrelevant stuff like "Rani's tanned new look" and 'Rani was approached for the Namesake but could not take it on due to dates" and "rani was prepared for this role by talking to her mom" and "Rani was signed on for this film on her birthday" which is irrelevant to her career or her success/ lack of it. Let's talk about what she has done, let's have some succesful films mentioned and some failures but not who said what on what day and not every article/ gossip that has been published about her incorporated into an article. List this on the bollywood cinema discussion group, on the India discussion group and let's get some fresh perspective to this as the current positions are diametrically opposite. Haphar 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Plumcouch has been away from Wikipedia for quite some time now, while Pa7 is on vacation as well. None of us know when either will return.

I support the removal of all this tanned look and other irrelevant details, however I strongly oppose the removal of film details from her career section. I would also strongly support this discussion being taken to the the India discussion group and/or Bollywood Cinema discussion group. No doubt, a fresh perspective would be helpful. xC | ☎ 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion

I'd like to comment on every sentence/content/detail which was removed. If we don't do this now, There will be another edit war once the page is unprotected.

Here are the removals of Haphar (talk · contribs) and my opinions whether they should be kept or not:

• Known and highest paid actresses in Bollywood. Don't know why, but this statement is a cause of very much of arguments between users who edit the pages of Rani, Preity and Aishwarya. Some sources tell that and other that. Aishwarya is regarded as the highest paid. Shez says Rani is, and tomorrow someone will say it's Amisha Patel actually. One can never know the matter of these payments. Remove.

• Her performance in the song "Aati Kya Khandala" received rave reviews, caught the attention of the masses - If I had been a reader who reads this article for the first time, I would have thought you're talking here about a film, and not a song. Are songs notable for actors who perform them in the film? I can't see nothing notable here, to be honest. Actresses always get part in films which include hit songs. Dixit was famous for Ek Do Teen, Didi tera, Shilpa was famous for Churake Dil Mera, Preity for Jiya Jale etc etc. Remove.

• After her instant stardom, you replaced with After her success - OK fine.

• Both her films Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega (2000), Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye (2000) and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke (2001) did average business respectively. - The films were neither successful nor critically acclaimed. Remove.

• In 2002, Mujhse Dosti Karoge! opposite Hrithik Roshan was her first film with the Yash Raj Films production house in India. Although, the movie did not do well in India, it generated great business overseas, especially in the United Kingdom - Here I disagree. The movie was a flop, but we don't list only hit films in the career section. The movie has to be mentioned for two reasons: A. It marks her entry into YRF. B. It was a hit oversies. Remain

• About Saathiya being acclaimed: The film was critically appreciated, and earned her a myriad of honors and rave reviews. - It is necessary here. It was a kind of comeback for Mukerji. Apart from, her role in the film is considered as one of her finest performances to date. Remain.

• At the end of the year, Mukerji ventured into her first comic role, in Chori Chori - I saw the film. Comic or not. It is one of her most non-notable films, in the Box office, and in general as well. Remove.

• her makeover for the role was also widely noted., Mukerji signed the movie on her parents' request who wanted her to present the reality of widows in India, the focus of the film, She went through intense training to slim down for the role, to portray a modern look., Saawarya on her birthday - And more and more content about her look, designers, fashion is completely unneeded. Remove.

• When Bhansali first came to Mukerji with the offer, she turned it down. Mukerji stated that she was not confident enough to play such a role as she had no knowledge on the deaf and blind. Once the director put faith in her, she agreed to do it and intensely studied sign language with professionals. To prepare for her role in Black, she had to go through six to seven months of training at the Hellen Keller Institute in Mumbai. - It is important. Her role in the film was super acclaimed. We have to write that she won awards. The preparation for this difficult role is very important like in other pages of foreign film actors. The work behind the film is part of her career for all intents and purposes. One section of 3 lines is nothing. We have to add further information about Black. As per Box Office India, the Box Office official site, B&B wasn't the biggest hit of the year. It was the second highest grossing. Reamain.

• Mukerji was offered the lead role in Hollywood film, The Namesake but owing to clashing dates with Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, she couldn't commit to Mira Nair's project. - For an Indian actress it is an honour being offered a role for a Hollywood/foreign film. We don't mention every film which crosses our way. Just a notable film like this. Remain.

• Mukerji instantly agreed to do this movie as she could identify the character's situation in a family crisis and has modelled her performance on her own mother - I'm not sure for this. But I can't see any problem in writing where did an actor get his inspiration from for this or another film. I don't know for now.

• Mukerji took piano lessons to get her posture and finger movements accurate, as she plays a pianist in the movie. - Here I agree with you. This role is not as notable as the deaf-blind Michelle McNally in Black. There is nothing special in this role. Remove.

• An unprecedented Rs. 4 million was paid to Mukerji for her role in the movie. - I don't really know. Do whatever you find right to do. In this case I'm shut.

• Hence, the actress was honored by a largely foreign audience of 50,000 at the Casablanca Film Festival (2005) in Morocco where four of her movies were presented. - I think film festivals are well deserved to be mentioned, but this one is already on the awards. Decide - either here or there.

• She was offered Mani Ratnam's Dil Se but could not act in it as dates were a problem. - I still doubt whether she was really offered the role. In any case, it's an old film and it's not Hollywood like The Namesake.

OK, please share your opinions on my suggestions. Best Regards, --Shshshsh 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with the list in large, there are a few points I disagree with, ( ie Black- so much of a big deal about a copied movie) but in order to keep the discussions polite and short will concede. Haphar 14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Haphar, feel free to discuss everything you agree or disagree with. That's why I'm here. You don't have to concede just because you want to avoid disputes.

About Black. I think that's the only film which really deserves background description. The film is copied, but the performances were brilliant. I'll disagree too, if someone says that we have to do it for every film (like the last TRRP). Black really constitutes a hard work of time and experience. She could not have enacted a deaf-blind role without any preparation. That's what I think, and if you have some hesitations regarding this, please share. Logical reasons are always welcome.

If there are still some points you disagree with (there are a few points I disagree with), please share...

Best Regards, --Shshshsh 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think the following statement is unnecessary: In 2005, after being on the Filmfare's Power List as the only woman in the February 2005 issue, Mukerji finally declared in an interview with "After Hrs" that she is the top actress in the country. - She said that she is Number 1. So what? What's notable here? I read that Aamir Khan also said that... So what? does it make Rani or Aamir number 1? What do you think? --Shshshsh 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes a lot of guts to say that aloud. And we're not saying that makes them No.1. But it denotes that they do think they are. People can agree and disagree but the facts need to be stated about what the actor quoted if references are available. Plus, Rani's not the person who would make a fool of herself. She must know the statistics before saying anything like this. It's not even important if it's true or not. It's important to state what she said in that important interview. Like her interview in Controversies. That's noted there about Hitler despite her ignoring the statement, so why not this?- shez_15

Wow I see Rani has a lot of guts to say what she wants to say, but she says different things every every day. There is nothing notable in saying that. Best regards, --Shshshsh 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine

OK I have recently made the accepted points by Haphar and me. Are there any problems? Please discuss before editing again to prevent an edit war. Best Regards, --Shshshsh 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, the article looks OK. I would propose to move the polls to the awards and nominations page because they are trivial and really should belong in the awards article. I would also propose that details on film notes should be in the film article and not the actors article. Such as BR Chopra celebrating 50 years for his production house. How is that relevant to Rani Mukerji? It does not belong in this article. I have done the same for Preity Zinta's article such as the fact that Salaam Namaste was filmed in Australia, how is that relevant to her? Opinions would be helpful. -- Pa7 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with you Pa7! It was unnecessary in both the pages of Zinta and Mukerji.

details on film notes should be in the film article and not the actors article. - We have to go according to this.

Mmmm polls... I don't know. I think it is good to use it in the article as long as it appears in a suitable section like the previous Popularity or the current In the media in Zinta's page (see Tom Cruise). Having a separated section for POLLS is unnecessary and even good to avoid. It is unencyclopedical. Best regards, Shshshsh 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pa7. Polls should go to the awards page since they're biased as are awards since a jury decides. And each award ceremony mostly gives away awards to different people and there is no clear-cut winner. Thus, awards page is all hype and so are polls. Better put up against each other. I also agree that topics on films should be mentionned in the film articles instead of cluttering the actor's page. Now, what concerns me is the role preparation. Harphar doesn't want that at all. I feel it's quite important if there are some references or sources for it. What say? Best Regards, shez_15

Also, though not a deep concern regarding this page, but for future references, it's better to check when putting a reference where some critic made remarks. As suggested by the Bollywood celebrities and film makers that the critics of India aren't true critics. Most of them don't know their job. They just provide the story line and put actor was good or bad. That's not what critics are supposed to do if you read some unbiased hard-core Hollywood critics. Thus, be careful. And also, I feel we shouldn't add critical acclaim to every film. Since most Bollywood movies are made for commercial reasons and not to gain critical acclaim. Thus, critical acclaim should be noted for films which do get it and not to be mentionned for every film which do not. Except when they are made to get critical acclaim, like in the case of Black or Kya Kehna, and if it doesn't, then it should be noted there was no critical acclaim. - shez_ 15

• Polls are largely subjective. I support their inclusion on the seperate page of awards.
• If role preps are such a bone of contention, throw em out of this page, but integrate them with the relevant film article.
• It is extremely difficult to decide which critics are notable enough/unbiased/dependable. For a role which got an actor critical acclaim, it is worth mentioning, for sure. As I have pointed out before in other talk pages as well, success can be either commercial and/or critical. Haphar's removal of statements regarding her critical success created a void in the article, where only her commercial successes are noted. Clearly, this leaves the article incomplete, so I would support keeping critical commentary (positive or negative, as the case may be) in the article.
• Another thing - this edit by Shez removed the fact that the film was critically panned, noting i don't think critically panned is necessary, since the movie is made for commercial reasons, not to receive rave reviews. This is completely off the mark - some film-makers make movies only for commercial success, not all. Similary, some actors only work for commercial success and don't care whether or not they are appreciated critically. There are tons of films which were panned critically, but did very well commercially, for example the Lara Croft series. We are not here to decide with what purpose the film-maker made the film. We are simply supposed to note the critics' and box-office reaction. Therefore that removal by Shez was wrong.xC | ☎ 09:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes xC, you're right. I don't even think that filmmakers make films for this or another reason. Every filmmaker wants commercialy success, as well as critical appreciation. Hum Tum for example, was a hit. Moreover, Saif Ali Khan won the National Film Award and Rani all the other. Every new film is delivered to everyone's view and judgement. TRRP wasn't SUPER acclaimed. It was well received by critics and by box office earnings as well. So overall, it did well.

OK, the Black preparation appears already in its own page. However, I think background description for a role like michelle in Black, is worthy of mention here too. I think it's important to write on her preparation and hard work in her own page since it is part of her work and her career. It wasn't a preparation of one week, it was a hard work of half a year experience. She could not have enacted a deaf-blind role without any preparation like this. Do whatever you wanna do regarding this. In this case, I'm out.

Mmm polls. She has In The Media section. We can shift it there (like in Tom Cruise's page). In fact, we are not removing nothing. The awards page is a kind of expanded section which is separated from the page. If you want, shift it there.

Best regards, --Shshshsh 11:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not shifting anything anywhere - I am terribly disillusioned by the entire process.

Best of luck for all the bollywood articles,xC | ☎ 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I didn't really understand. What did you mean by disillusioned by the entire process and Best of luck for all the bollywood articles. Best regards, --Shshshsh 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It means I wish you best of luck in improving all the Bollywood articles. Until we have a set of guidelines/policies to look to, us editors are going to keep having these merry-go-round discussions that (more often than not) deal with the same issues over and over again.

I posted on Jolie's talk page - a featured article's talk page and no-one cares enough to reply to a genuine question regarding the content. Disconcerting at the very least, terribly demotivating at the very best.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. We don't have any progress here. But I also think that we are a very little group of editors here. We need more opinions to be added. Plumcouch, Zora, Haphar and more, were working on these pages earlier, and now they've dissapeared. That's a problem, since we can't get to a definite solution. Best of luck to you as well. Best regards, --Shshshsh 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's disappeared, watching things and as demonstrated (yet again) things can be discussed many times here, but one user will try and sneak in all the things back over a period of time-leading to disputes again. And the user had the gall to accuse me of not listening Haphar 08:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good. I just don't believe that some critics are doing a good job. We need to find some dedicated and reputed critics which are only a few in India. From what I've heard, everyone has said that the acting was great by everyone in the movie. So, I don't see why we have to write "critically panned" when Rani's acting was appreciated. The film critic should be on the film's page, not the actor's. - shez_15

LoL, I really like this Shehzad. When it comes to say that she was critically acclaimed for Black, it's OK. BUT, when it comes to say that TRRP was critically panned - it's wrong. Is there some1 who can get his mind? --Shshshsh 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that from what I've heard the performances are critically acclaimed, so it's unfair to note down critically panned. I think if the movie is critically panned, then it should go in its article, not in the actor's limited page. The actor's performances should be noted if critically acclaimed or not. - shez_15

Slight problem

Xc, the phrase "landed up in college all over again" in Early Work doesn't make sense since college is no longer mentioned in the whole paragraph. Her college and school-related concerns are in Personal Life. What to do? Please either change Early life to Background and add all the college and school mention there. I just don't think Early work implies to Rani's Career since it's so brief. Or if you have any other idea, do the changes yourself since I don't want to interfere with your fabulous job! - shez_15

My mistake - I was going to decide about that, but in looking for images and refs, forgot all about it :P

No, the reason I hadn't removed it that time itself was that sentence is needed to show that Biyar Phool was done while she was still in school, while Raja Ki Aayegi Baraat was done in college. That entire paragraph is needed to show that she did some film related work early on, but her career really took off only post-Ghulam.

I agree Early work as a section is pretty short, but so are several other sections. I'm working on it... content addition and rewriting is time-consuming, so changes will take a while to turn up on her page...

Right now I'm trying to figure out the best way to integrate In the media and Famous commitments into a coherent form.

None of us own this page, its our collective effort that's turned it out this well. Whatever changes you'd like to make, please do! Be bold! If theres anything that needs to be changed, that can always be worked out later on the talk page.

Happy editing!xC | ☎ 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)