Talk:Rani Mukerji/Archive 3

Here you go

Here's the references for the song Aati Kya Khandala: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I can go on. There are so many references for it. So, if you want to look for some on your own, you can. But here's a start. The first two are already used for press coverage on Rani's page. So, I suggest not to use them. The second reference also mentions Koi Mil Gaya song from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. I think these two songs are quintessential. I don't want to put every song. Later, she became known more for her movies, roles and performances than songs. I have one question. If we do talk about the important movies in her career section, should we also put the name of the role besides them. Not for many but only the few six that have been the most important. For example: Tina Malhotra in Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, Michelle McNally in Black, Vimmi Saluja in Bunty Aur Babli, Dr. Suhani Sharma in Saathiya, Saamiya Siddiqi in Veer-Zaara, Rhea Prakash Sharma in Hum Tum, etc. But I think these are the utmost important ones and we can eliminate a few if we had to. But do you want to mention the character's name in career too because it's already there in filmography. Maybe only Michelle McNally and Saamiya Siddiqi. I don't know. Any comments? --shez 14:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming all the roles is unneccessary. Roles for which she recieved critical praise and/or awards could be mentioned, alongwith any notable preperation she did, if we can find refs for it.

The songs could be mentioned alongwith whatever films she's done, if the song did have some impact. For this, we'll need external sources. You know it, I know it, everyone knows that songs help careers in Bollywood, but other readers might not, which is why external sources noting why or how the song helped her career would be neccessary.

Just a side-note, your refs above include a Tripod site, which isn't considered a good source, as per WP:RS. The others could be counted as decent refs, I haven't had the time to look through them, but since two of them are newspapers, that should be sufficient.

regards,xC | ☎ 06:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. So now that your ideas are congruous with mine, when will this protected page be unlocked? I guess all the professional editors like you can start writing and I can provide you with some references and ideas where ever needed. Just ask me. Thanks a lot. I think I will never have to edit this page again once everything starts rolling and the finished product is satisfactory. --shez 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, theres still a weeks time for the page protection to wear off. I don't know whether or not Michaels10 would unprotect earlier.

Perhaps its better if we don't request early unprotection - there hasn't been much input here from Plumcouch and Shshshsh. Some of the more recent stuff we've discussed might need a look at by both editors.

Btw, about Biyar Phool, as mentioned above, I've managed to get details that she was in the film, and her co-actors. But I can't find anything confirming the year it was released in, or her age when it was released. Either way, since its apparent that she did the film, it should remain in Career section.

Also, we discussed whether her Early work, 1992-1997 sub-section should have a heading which reads with 1992 or 1996. I'd like to suggest that we could very well note it as Early work, upto 1997, which eliminates the question of when it started. If as and when we find references for Biyar Phool, it could be changed.

Editing the page again and again will definitely be neccessary, Shez. Mukherjee is destined to be a star, and I'm sure she's going to have a long and noteworthy career. As she does more movies, we'll be there to add em in :)

Regards,xC | ☎ 10:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know

I know that she's even going to work in films even after marriage as said by her. But I'm just saying we'll have to make a functionning system on the page with editors who can update her awards and other things as such because I don't think I'm going to be doing this all my life. At present, I have the time but I'm off to university this summer, so I won't be doing much on the page after these two months. So, I really want to see results soon. Anyhow, whenever the page gets unprotected, we'll see. Yeah, if you want to put the movie in career, I don't really mind as long as we don't put she started her career in 1992 which leads to false belief. We can say it was her first bengali film with her father as a director. And then 1996, she entered Bollywood. Anyway, I wanted to talk to you about her personal life section. You said you wanted names whereas other editors before said it defames other actors since they were rumours. However, the media knows about it which means people know about and alleged link-ups were in the news for a long time. She has been fully linked to Govinda when she was doing her films with him. Stardust Magazine even claimed she moved into his house. This affair was the most talked about one and the most credible one to people. Though, it was wrong since Govinda is with his wife even today. Other people who she has been romantically linked to are Abhishek Bachchan, Aditya Chopra and Karan Johar. She even got married to Karan according to some sources. But to me, these were all false rumours. So, I don't think we need to put them in personal life. But we need to put she has been linked to many people in personal life like on the page right now. However, you wanted names. So here they were. I still think we shouldn't put names. Another thing: she has been pitted against some actors and actresses. Of course, she has been said to be having problems with Zinta. Though, they both share a great professional rapport and they meet each other with decorum everywhere in front of the media, still the media alleges they don't get along. Now, the two actresses have already said they're not good friends. And they're are no differences between them. It's probably because the media put them as best friends at the time of Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega and at the time of Veer-Zaara, they said they don't get along. Whereas Rani says they were just never close since the beginning. The media put them in close relationships. I still think there are some differences since both of them share similar career paths and they're both at the top of their time. Plus, even when Preity had the lead role in Veer-Zaara and HDJPK, Rani's name was always printed before Preity's in the film. Rani's name was always before Preity's in every film of theirs. And she catched the most attention whenever they worked in a film except during Chori Chori Chupke Chupke where Preity played a prostitute and hence was more noticed and got more acclaim for her performance. But in most cases, Rani came out as a winner. Even at times of Veer-Zaara when Preity was the most successful actress in Bollywood, Rani got more attention for her work as a lawyer in the movie and she even bagged the Best Actress trophy for Hum Tum everywhere even though Veer-Zaara was the biggest film of the year. There is bound to be some tension there. Moving on, she's been pitted against Ash. Now this can be proved. Both of them first met during their world-tour in 1999 and have since then become close friends. There are so many appearances they've made together and in one interview, Rani even said they are going to stay best friends forever. They both said they keep in touch on the phone whenever they don't meet. But when Ash got kicked out of Chalte Chalte and Rani accepted the role, they have never talked to each other. Since 2003, they never got the chance to appear anywhere together and they never called each other to clarify what happened. In Koffee with Karan, Rani claims she never interacted with Ash afterwards. Ash has made no comments about her in public since 2003. Now, Abhishek and Rani are also very close friends as can be seen from watching them together on special events on tv but Rani was not invited to their wedding! Why? Because of differences between Ash and Rani. Lastly, Rani swore not to work with Vivek Oberoi anymore. Not that he matters but in personal life, it can be stated that Rani never has problems with her co-stars but with Vivek, things were different. Something happened on the sets of Saathiya which I don't know about but there is an interview where Rani said she would not want to work with Vivek. By the way, Vivek was offered the role of Saif in Hum Tum but declined due to differences. The media thinks Ash made him say 'no' since they were dating then. I just provided you with whatever I know. Now, it's up to you and other editors to decide what to put in personal life. But I can guarantee that differences with Ash and Rani exist since 2003. The rest can be gossip but this is true. They were close and now, they don't even talk. --shez 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just a request, Shez, could you please add line-breaks into your posts, seperating the content into paragraphs? Its just that its a little overwhelming to see such a massive block of text...
• Now, definitely, we'll put together a functional system on this page - I'm sure we'll have massive progress once the page is unprotected end of this month.
• About her personal life, well I'm not happy with whats in the article, and I strongly oppose addition of any rumours.

1.Gossip columnists have linked Mukherjee to many industry figures, but she has strongly denied every single rumor of romance.[citation needed] - Names aren't needed. Gossip is just that - gossip. The only citation(s) we need here is(are) statements by Mukherjee, denying the rumours. We don't need names or whatever, as long as we have a quote or something of the sort from her denying them, thats enough.

2.Most gossip columns have also claimed that she is regularly in feud with some of the Bollywood actors and actresses, - Who most? Which gossip columns? Are these gossip columns notable? Who is it said she is in feud with? Has she ever acknowledged or denied these rumours? This statement opens up a Pandora's box of questions.

3.but everyone knows Mukherjee as the most diplomatic and caring person in the industry.[32] - remarkably POV. There might be people more diplomatic than her. There might be people more caring than her. Which scientific study has quantified how diplomatic and/or caring she is? Ridiculous. Remove.

4.Mukherjee seems to lead a hard-working life, putting all her focus in every aspect of her career. - unreferenced. Unneccessary. Remove. Also, it is not for WP to comment on what it seems she is doing.

5.She appears in the news only for appearances at movie premieres, special events, film festivals, award ceremonies, film promotion-related proceedings, or charity work. - thats quite a lot of things she appears for, doesn't she? The real question here is what does she not appear for? The correct answer is - she's just like the other movie stars, appearing only when she has to.

6.Home is important to her. - Did her mother write this in the article? Do we have a quote from her? We don't have a reference for this. Remove.

• About the apparent Mukherjee-Zinta feud - until either of the two say there is a feud, it seems speculative to comment. If either or both have said there is no feud, then we have to write that there has been speculation but theres been clarification that there isn't.

See in the case of the John Abraham-Salman Khan feud, we have clear instances of Khan giving Abraham the cold shoulder, quotes from celebrities saying things aren't well and a report of Khan turning down a film since Abraham was in it. All this despite Abraham saying everythings all rosy between them. So when we have proof that there actually is a feud, then we can say that there is a feud. Cite-able behaviour, quotes, etc would constitute proof for the feud. Seeing whose name came earlier in the credits isn't enough to convince me about this.

• You've noted what happened in the time of Hum Tum and Veer Zaara. However, who decides who is the most successful at any given point in the industry? Who was more noticed is speculative, both were very well noted for their respective roles. Its a bit of a stretch to say there is a feud between the two because one's film did better than the other while the other wins all the awards. The scenario doesn't prove anything. Nor can I comment about any tension between the two, since I don't know them personally.
• Again, your research on the Rai-Mukherjee angle might just be true. But that is what it is - original research. Have a look at WP:OR. As you say yourself, we don't have details about their squabble, and we don't know what exactly went wrong. We need some credible third party source to have said something about this.
• Personally, I think the Bachchan wedding shouldn't be used for concluding anything. What happened there is unknown to anyone who wasn't inside. There are other reasons why the Bachchan wedding should not be used as a clear indicator of anything, but since none of those reasons involve Mukherjee, I'll leave it out of this article talk page.

All in all, I strongly object to putting in any details of gossip. I also agree with you, that names shouldn't be included. We could put in the line that she has been linked several times, and the a sentence that shes denied all of them. References at the end of it would be for her denying the link-ups.

If we have proof, we could very well put in feuds if its been noted by someone else, or in some source which would satisfy WP:RS. But speculation on our part, or original reasearch, wouldn't be right. On top of that, the actress' statements deserve equal if not more weightage than the gossip columns. So if Mukherjee states everythings good, then for all purposes of Wikipedia, everything is good.

Regards,xC | ☎ 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see

Exactly my thoughts. By the way, I didn't put these sentences on the page: "Mukherjee seems to lead a hard-working life", "She appears in the news only for appearances at movie premieres, special events, film festivals, award ceremonies, film promotion-related proceedings, or charity work", "Home is important to her". And I think this is really unneeded but Zora and Pa_7 were the ones who wrote all this, so I suggest you talk to them. Although, I don't think they would mind. So, we can just remove it.

• I can find references for her denying the link-ups but names will be mentionned in the reference. I hope you're fine with that.
• Ash-Rani rivalry is apparent, we have to put it. Here's one recent reference for now: [7]
• Most of the rumours do spread when Rani is gone abroad for shooting and then when she comes back to Mumbai, she finds all these newspapers talking about her. Like in the case of Preity-Rani rivalry when they were shooting for KANK in New York. Then there were rumours of Aditya Chopra last year. She came back to Mumbai only to deny them when her mother notified her. Here's a reference for her denying rumours with Govinda in a Filmfare interview: [8]
• And if we do have to prove a rumour, we can put it like on Angelina Jolie's page. The section: Jolie in the media is an example. The tabloids that follow once you're popular. But that's if, I don't really want to. But here's an interesting reference on her supposed affair with Aditya Chopra: [9]
• All my references are coming from reputed sources, though sometimes, they can be wrong due to some misunderstandings and misconceptions. But here's an example of true gossip: [10] This should not be tolerated on wikipedia. The rest of the references are never over-the-top like in this case. Thanks for listening. --shez 24:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys there was no feud between Preity and Rani. At the time of HDJPK they seemed to be friends. You could have seen them hugging, talking and loving each other (if you request I have references). After Preity`s success in 2003, They moved away from each other. It hurt Rani that Preity had become so popular before Rani did. In 2004, Preity received the leading role in the biggest film of the year due to her previous year success. Rani was credited before Preity cause she is senior to her in the industry as well as in the YRF banner. That`s all. Rani wasn`t notable in VZ. Preity was. The reason for Rani`s success was definitely Hum Tum. OK, so Rani won all the awards. So what? It does not determine nothing of an actor`s abilities over anothers. Not at all. Like Preity said once: "You win some, you lose some" and that`s OK. And I`m happy Rani won cause she was well deserved for HT, although I liked Preity`s performance more. I believe next year Preity will be the principal winner at the awards ceremonies.

As for the feud. Yes, there were rumours, but later it turned out to be a big and false gossip. That`s why they appeared together in KBC, to clear the air. And it was clearly notable that they are not rivals like it seemed to be. Both of them are great and successful and today they are sharing the top together:-). So forget it.

As for Ash, there are no commercial rivalry between the two. It`s their personal problem. Thanks. --Shshshsh 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, Shez if you read that, I`ll talk to you tomorrow. Good night.

No Shahid, they don't put Rani's name before Preity only because she's two years senior. It's merely because she has a more notable role like in KANK and Veer-Zaara. Even in HDJPK, she was a coma patient, something different. Yes in CCCC, she didn't have an important role but she was then regarded more popular than Preity. If they put her name before Preity only because she's senior, then why don't they put AB Jr.'s name after Rani. Rani is four years senior than him. Leaving male co-stars alone, why didn't they put Sonali Bendre's name before Rani in Chori Chori. Sonali is two years senior to Rani. Why didn't they put Manisha Koirala's name before Rani in Calcutta Mail, Manisha is seven years senior to Rani. It's simply because Rani had a more important role in all the movies with her female co-stars. --shez 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have unprotected the page. Be good! Rich Farmbrough, 21:36 24 April 2007 (GMT).

Ok Guys!

Guys, let's get rolling and work hard for the next few weeks until good results are achieved. The page is unprotected and I'm removing trivia and television appearances and what not. Any comments? --shez

• Good job, Shez.
• I shifted awards and nominations to a seperate sub-page.
• Cleaned up personal life and added family section into it.
• I note that references has a sub-section Press Coverage. We don't need this section, since they are all web-links, not references to print sources. Whatever sentences in the article utilize these links, should be put in <ref></ref> tags. Will get to that later.

Thats it for now, won't be making any more large changes until some more editors have a look at the page.

Regards,xC | ☎ 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work for now!

I see you've done well. But since you put awards and nominations, it would be better to find nominations for Rani since the page is all awards and only Filmfare nominations. I can ask shshshsh for that. Another thing: Can you remove number five reference from the early life section since there is one after each sentence. It looks silly to have ten of them in one paragraph. It's better to just put one at the end of the para. Thanks. --shez

LOL, yes I noticed that while I was cleaning up the page. But we need the references. Also, we are relying on a single ref for the entire para. It could easily have refs from seperate sites. Don't worry about that, I'll get to finding them.

I see you're online right now. If you're free, could you have a look at the Personal life section? Theres a line about her being attached to her niece, I question whether that line should be there - it seems unencyclopedic. I mean, what has Mayesha done that deserves her space in the article? And calling her Mishti is non-notable as well. Just a thought...

Regards,xC | ☎ 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know Mishti is so unnotable but pa_7 put that in. I'll see to it tomorrow. I have to sleep now. --shez

No problem, I'll look at it now. Good night xC | ☎ 08:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TV appearances

Thare are some TV appearances like KBC and KWK which should be kept. They even have their own pages in WP. Please put it back. --Shshshsh 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Star appearances can be very well mentioned on the page of the show. It is unneccessary to mention that she appeared in KBC or KWK or whichever other talk show she turned up on. Regards,xC | ☎ 15:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards seperate page

Shshshsh (talk · contribs) added back some of the awards into the page, saying Popular awards should be kept in the page. There appears to be a misunderstanding here - the point of having a seperate page for awards and nominations is that the list does not appear in part or whole in the main article.

Who decides which awards are popular? You do not. I do not. I don't see any formal rankings and/or studies stating which awards are more popular. Hence we cannot judge which award is more popular. The Oscars are considered the most prestigious in Hollywood, but that does not reduce the popularity of the Golden Globes. Its a very strange matter, indeed, trying to differentiate among the awards on the basis of popularity.

If we put in some of the awards, such as the ones hand-picked by editor Shshshsh, then other editors will also make their own demands, and soon we'll end up with the entire list back on this page. That would clutter the main page, which is counter-productive to what we are trying to achieve here.

Therefore, that list should remain on a seperate page, and no part of it should be copied here. Once on that seperate page is enough, we don't need to publicize that particular award any further. I'd like to point you to Johnny Depp, Celine Dion, Beyoncé Knowles, all of which have seperate awards pages. So awards on a seperate page are not repeated in the main article.

Regards,xC | ☎ 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree!

Yeah, I'm okay with it. It's true other people will put maybe Stardust Awards as popular and then another would put MTV as popular. I think only Filmfare should be kept since they are the only awards which have continued from 1953. All other awards have been founded at the utmost after 1994. Filmfare awards are already listed in the info box. Thus, no awards in the awards section. The list is there for them. National Awards can be added to infobox for the actors which have won them.

And no television appearances should be on the page since stars appear on television every single day. The same thing again. Another person will come along and put Manish Malhotra Show as popular television appearance. There's no need unless the actor is acting on television like what Saif did in Jassi Jaissi Koi Nahi. That's Television Appearance. Like what Julia Roberts did in FRIENDS. Interviews are a routine. There are so many. Thus, not important. So, what should we do now on Rani and Preity's page? What do you think about the box under filmography for Kajol? Should it be removed since the infobox does the same thing or should we make it for other actors too? - Shez 15

I just glanced at Kajol's page. It suffers terribly from POV and lacks references. Theres a section Television which is completely unencyclopedic, and happens to be right above a section titled Popular Awards. You can see what I'm getting at - that page needs quite a bit of work as well.

Kajol doesn't have those many awards listed, and it would be logical to not decide by ourselves which are more popular or not. A seperate page of awards isn't needed for her article, but definitely the article needs some re-naming of headers and formatting.

Also, theres a little box of Television appearances which is completely unneccessary. That content should be shifted to their respective shows and removed from her article.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

shifted here from article

Since the day she took over Aishwarya Rai's role in Chalte Chalte (2003), the two close friends have never interacted, as claimed by Mukherjee in an interview on Koffee with Karan. Thus, the dispute has been the reason behind why Mukherjee wasn't invited to Abhishek Bachchan's wedding.

I shifted the above from the article as it seems inappropriate -

• Why are we only mentioning lack of interaction with Rai? There are several actresses who she might not have interacted with, then why single out Rai?
• This may or may not be the reason why they were invited to the wedding, it is speculation on our part, since we don't have reliable quotes from either individual.
• Amitabh Bachchan has said that the only reason people weren't invited to the wedding was to tone down the celebrations (due to his mother's illness) and not make it a circus. While personally I am not inclined to believe him, fact is he has gone on record saying this.
• Lastly, any speculation about the (missing) guests at the wedding is unencyclopedic, and does not deserve space in an encyclopedic article about an actress. If we wish to have such conspiracy theories, we could have it on a seperate page, say Ash-Abhi wedding - why certain celebrities were not invited ;)

Regards,xC | ☎ 07:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I added Govinda because that reference is about her denying her affair with Govinda specifically. I don't want to mention Govinda. It will be better to find other references which include other names or a reference which talks about denying affairs in general. Well, her not interacting with Ash is a concern since they were really close for four years. And then all of a sudden, they never talked. And on KWK, Rani has admitted it while, Ash always puts a no comment. I know the Ash-Abhi wedding is unnotable but it is a proof of their finished friendship. Because Rani is a close buddy of Abhishek, while both Jaya and Amitabh adore her since their working space with her in K3G. And yes, it could be true they did want to tone the wedding invitees but then why would they invite Preity? She's not too close to Abhishek, she is to Ash. And why wouldn't they invite SRK? Because Ash doesn't talk to him either after Chalte Chalte. In any case, the wedding is not notable but Ash-Rani rivalry is. - Shez 15

You found an excellent reference. I believe her denying the rumours are enough to be mentioned in the article, theres no need to put in the involved names as well. Since she denies them, they are only rumours and so we shouldn't spread these stories. WP is referred, sourced and out-and-out copied on a daily basis, half the hits on Google have material which was originally on WP. As such, we have an obligation to WP and the Internet community to not put in unsourced/unverifiable material, or content which is potentially libelous. Therefore its better not to mention names directly in that line. The references specifically for her denying them can be tacked on at the end of the sentence. I realise this means we may end up having 3 or more refs at the end of the sentence but she has strongly denied every single rumor of romance.[37][denial of second rumour][denial of third rumour][and so on]. I believe this is the best means to put in her denial of the rumours without dragging names into it.

I believe the wedding was a fiasco, and too much shouldn't be read into it. What could have been an excellent opportunity to unite the cream of Bollywood turned into a show of eccentricity and rumours. The Bachchans have simply made a few new enemies, and turned a few old friends cold. However this is my personal view, I can provide detailed reasons why the wedding should not be used to conclude anything, but since that does not directly relate to Mukherjee's article, I'll only elaborate on that if requested to.

There could be many reasons why SRK wasn't invited -

• The alleged Bachchan-Khan feud
• Lack of work-relations between Khan and Abhishek
• Not so friendly relations between Khan and Aishwarya
• Inviting one of the Khans and none of the others would surely create problems in the future
• And surely many other possible reasons exist.

However, none of this can be put into an article, as it is speculation on our part. We have to go by what Big B says, and as per the interviews he has given after the wedding, he did not call all his guests as he did not what to turn it into a media circus, as well as to tone down celebrations due to his mother's illness. Whatever be the real reasons, this is what he has said, and that is what we are forced to go by, as per policy.

Also, the second round of card-sending by the Bachchan family has started. These cards, shown by the news channels, ask for blessings from all the people the Bachchan family knew but could(did) not invite to the wedding. As per the report of Star News and Aaj Tak, these cards are being sent to roughly 2000 people. I saw it yesterday on both these channels, and I'm sure I could easily find a ref for this since it wsa treated as major news.

Assuming that this report is true, that means we have a potential list of 2000 people that have feuded with the Bachchan family at some point or the other, or maintain relations with them at a distance. So for all these 2000 people, we can speculate why they weren't invited. This of course, is all unencyclopedic, so no conclusion can be drawn from the wedding itself.

Also, WP is not Orkut, Facebook, or any of the other social networking sites. We are not here to trace out friendships, their development or their demise. If she had a fist-fight with Rai, that would surely be notable. But not being on talking terms with someone does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia article. It follows that any listing of who her friends in the industry are, who her enemies are,etc is all unencyclopedic, and they add no value to the article.

Hence the Mukherjee-Rai alleged feud should not be in the article. I would just liketo clarify, I have nothing against Mukherjee, Rai, or anyone else in the film industry, I'm just trying to help improve an article here.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I can understand. I don't want to speculate on the wedding nor who she was linked to. Your idea of references at the end is a good one. I can put them on tomorrow. I was thinking that too before. Anyhow, I do think Ash-Rani rivalry is pretty apparent. If you've seen the Jeena Isi Ka Naam episode, you'll know. Here's a video: [11] It's weird that they were this close and now they don't talk. The show is about introducing a celebrity's family and close friends to the audience. The point of having Rani on Ash’s show was to demonstrate to the world of their friendship. This video can be put as a reference to show how close they were. And there are more than ten photos I can find where they are talking together in front of the public. But after Chalte Chalte, no phone talks as Rani said on KWK. Since people do know about her interview, there is no speculation on wikipedia’s part. It’s just like on Lindsay Lohan’s page, there is written stuff about her on wikipedia where she won’t talk to this and that actress. So, there’s nothing new. Everything is sourced and the insiders (the real public which watches all these interviews) know about their being friends before and not now. See the video which can avouch for their former friendship. Thus I think it should be kept in personal life section since it is personal. And you said we are supposed to write in detail on her career and personal life and controversies? When are we going to do that? This is a story that can be mentionned, if not in detail but briefly. - Shez 15

I looked through the entire Lindsay Lohan article, I couldn't find the lines you mentioed. I'd be grateful if you pointed them out to me, I've looked all over?

I definitely agree that her career needs to be expanded with details.

Again, why should we focus on the Rai-Mukherjee friendship? Why is it notable enough to be mentioned in the article? Why is her friendship, and subsequent end of it, notable?

Uma Thurman is a very well-respected actress, no doubt with a ton of friends within Hollywood. Her article is FA level, and it has no details about her friends or which friendships of hers ended.

Angelina Jolie - FA level - no mention of friends anywhere.

Lastly, Diane Keaton - FA level. The only mention of friends is the line stating she is still friends with her exes, even after their break-up.

All three are FA class, and not a single mention of friends anywhere. I would also like to point out that their being friends earlier wasn't notable either, so subsequently their not being friends is also non-notable.

Regards,xC | ☎ 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I requested a Peer Review of the article. I believe its improved a lot over the last few weeks, and suggestions for further improvement would be beneficial. Having the WP community look over the article everyone has worked so hard on is a good opportunity for us to find out what are the article's strengths and where it is lacking. To all peer reviewers, thank you for your time :)

Best regards,xC | ☎ 07:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

xC, Could you explain to me what is actually "peer review" means? Who does that? Whom did you request to make a peer review? --Shshshsh 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PR. The WP community offers to review articles and make suggestions for improvement. Its done by whichever editor volunteers to have a look. Have a look at the WP:PR page for further details. Thanks xC | ☎ 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Hey Shshshsh, I'm fine with it. Again, some parts really need to be re-written to make a flow in the article, to make it more coherent. For that, we'll need a great writer. Anyhow, my concern for now is her name. Because as in the case for married women, wikipedia changes the name as to what the actress puts it. Like for Jaya Badhuri: it's Jaya Bachchan. And I think for Ash, we also need to change it to Bachchan soon as she has legally changed it to Bachchan a week ago. So, now it's Aishwarya Bachchan. Moving on, it should be Rani Mukerji and not Mukherjee because Mukerji is the way Rani puts it in her autographs, her movies and as per this quote: "The actress changed the English transliteration of her surname from Mukherjee to Mukerji several years ago. At the time, it was reported that she did this for numerological reasons. Recently, she has stated that numerology was not a concern; her name had been put down as Mukerji on her passport, and she wanted to be consistent." Even at the time of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, her name was written as Rani Mukherji in the movie. I know with a ‘h’ but then with her passport, it has been Mukerji since ‘Hum Tum’. Although, Karan Johar, for some reason puts her name as Mukherji even in K3G, Kal Ho Naa Ho and KANK. I guess it’s due to KKHH and he just wants to keep her name consistent to the one put in his first movie. However, every other film puts it as Mukerji, even Baabul. Though, for some reason, there was a typo error on the Baabul poster. I guess it’s because the ‘Mukherjee’ name is common in India and that’s how they spell it, so some people just don’t check or care about spelling and just put it as Mukherjee, the way it is conceived. Mukherjee was used in HDJPK and KPNH and PDHH. But to my knowledge, it has been Mukherji in most of her movies like Nayak, BISKH, etc. And since Hum Tum (2004), she has used Mukerji with the exception of KANK. I think Mukherjee can be put as her real name in the info box but Mukerji is what the actress prefers to use and it is how her movies are keeping it. Therefore, we’ll definitely need to move the page to Mukerji as per most wikipedia articles in other languages. And if possible we can turn fr:Rani Mukherjee into Rani Mukerji. What say? --User:shez_15

Support move to Mukerji, as per this. Also, I think Mukherjee can be put as her real name in the info box - theres no need for that, all Mukherjee should be changed to Mukerji. As she has legally changed her name, that is her real name now. xC | ☎ 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I approve. --User:shez_15

We'll just need another one or two editors to agree as well, so that there are more than 2 editors involved in this. Since she has stated her name change herself, this is an uncontroversial move. So there shouldn't be any problem regarding this. xC | ☎ 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, it was always weird to me. Almost All of her last films films, interviews, sites, magazines, TV shows use this name and I support to use the previous name only in the infobox. Fine, so her name will be moved to Rani Mukerji.--Shshshsh 12:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)