Wikipedia

Talk:Priyanka Chopra/Archive 5

< Talk:Priyanka Chopra
Latest comment: 2 years ago by ScottishFinnishRadish in topic Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2022
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Sexiest Asian Woman??

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The sentence is on the first paragraph! No citation nothing and this is a protected page? You mean Aishwarya Rai is not the sexiest in the world and no one else is? There is no proof that Priyanka is the sexiest Asian. May be one of the sexiest Asians and should quote which magazine said it. 37.140.228.18 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The details (and reference) are in the body of the article. Leads paragraphs typically don't contain references per WP:LEAD. --NeilN talk to me 19:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Win almost awards.... Now its a right age and time.... Abb tu shadi karlo SheikhMansoorAli (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"first South Asian woman to headline an American network series"

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"In 2015, she began starring as Alex Parrish on the ABC thriller series Quantico, becoming the first South Asian woman to headline an American network series." This isn't the case, as Mindy Kaling began headlining her show "The Mindy Project" in 2012: [1] Priyanka Chopra is, however, the first South Asian woman to headline an American network drama, which is the reason her casting has been hailed as groundbreaking. I'm new around here so I don't know how to edit when an article is semi-locked; please advise. 2604:2000:C544:9700:1CDD:852F:E4A9:2041 (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Kaling's article says that she was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That makes her an American actress, which it also says in her article. Bollyjeff | talk 02:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
South Asian, in this case, denotes ethnicity/lineage and not nationality. Kalling's citizenship is USA, but ethnicity/lineage from South Asia, hence Chopra is not the first. Now, if you state Chopra "is the first Indian woman to ...",then it is ok and truthful. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm bothered by the same thing, because the source specifically states that she is the first South Asian to headline an American network drama series. There was no good reason not to honor the IP request for the clarification; I've added that critical word, which should allay concerns. I think you'll run into some arguments about whether or not there were other firsts in other genre categories. Grandpallama (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindy_Kaling#The_Mindy_Project
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Priyanka Chopra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Priyanka Chopra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Racism

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Krish! and Manish2542, I think it is necessary to mention that it was an African American (not a white one) who racially bullied Chopra, as readers may misinterpret the sentence "Chopra sometimes faced racial issues and was bullied for being Indian" as meaning that people (mainly white) used to bully her, as opposed to a single person (the African-American mentioned in the interview) doing so. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I fully agree. Actually, that's the exact same argument I put forward when I first edited that bit. We have to avoid any confusions. Unfortunately Krish!, who's reverting my edit doesn't even seem to have watched the video where she clearly named the Afro-american classmate who repeatedly was racist to her. I'll make sure that the information remains mentioned as it should be, even if it implies editing it again and again.

Thank you, we share the same views on the subject.

Manish2542 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

She said in Koffee with Ksran that she is an Indian woman and so does not date. Please add this fact "X" to "Y" which is her personal life section because the country would like to know why she is single even when is 35 years old! 120.61.182.155 (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: Per WP:BLP we don't add gossip about living peoples' personal lives. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid gossip site. You haven't provided any exact proposed content to add, or a reliable source for it anyway. Begoon 11:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

But sir how it is gossip when she is still single at 35? Everybody will want to know this. She said that she is an Indian woman and does not date. But Indian woman also is not single at 35. Please say what to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.182.155 (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change Priyanka's profile picture to something better please, she looks ugly in it. Who even choose that picture though? You people seems like a hater to put that picture, she has so many beautiful recent pictures and you choose the ugly one?? Change it please. 183.78.95.181 (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you want there to be a new image, you need to suggest a specific image file. Such an image needs to comply with the Image Use Policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

... 183.78.95.11 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Adding information on how she is now dating Nick Jonas.

After much speculation on whether or not Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas were dating, a recent post onto his instagram profile answered any questions fans might have. He captioned his photo by admiring how beautiful her smile was. [1] Talonfin (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/entertainment/a20961201/priyanka-chopra-nick-jonas-dating/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Being a featured article, only minor changes would make sense. This rather be discussed in the project page where adding the fact that she is dating is relevant. — LeoFrank  Talk 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Laughably bad written article

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This article on Priyanka Chopra is really badly written. I am amazed to see it listed among the featured content on this highly reputed website. Some sections such as her acting career, philanthropy and media are laughably bad. There are also plenty of grammatical mistakes here and there, punctuation errors, several monotonous sentences in every paragraph of the acting career section and reviews are missing for many of her performances. On top of that, most of the reviews are direct quotes as opposed to paraphrased sentences. Most importantly the text needs to be tighter and interesting. Lots of other information is missing from the article such as how her mother entered her in the Miss World competition, how her father asked her mother to accompany Chopra to Mumbai and really gave her a year to make a mark in the film industry or else come back to pursue her studies etc. There is no personal life section. It can be formed by combining the last paragraphs of her early life and in the media section with some addition about many houses and cars she owns. Media has been reporting her relationship with music star Nick Jonas. Her in the media section does not give any information about her personality, acting style and most importantly lots of media lists she appeared on in last few years such as Forbes Celebrity 100 and several other Indian lists. I only see western lists here. Other Indian actresses' articles such as Deepika Padukone and Kangana Ranaut can be used to model this article. Their acting career sections are brilliantly written. I searched the Revision history and found that many writers have done fabulous job on articles like these, though not this one. I came across works of Wikipedia writers such as User:FrB.TG and User:Krimuk2.0. I hope they fix this article and really use my suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.91.110 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that it is "really badly written", but yes, there are a lot of issues that need fixing. I've addressed some of those today, especially the lack of neutrality and poor sourcing, and I hope to fix the other issues over the next few days. As for her relationship with Mr. Jonas, we will not be adding that information unless she decides to talk about the relationship, which she hasn't so far. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you chose to hide your identity to make these inflammatory comments. Bollyjeff | talk 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Still not fixed, User:FrB.TG and User:Krimuk2.0. The writers should work on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.159.53 (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Ugh. WP:DOITYOURSELF. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Very busy in real life and not a writer. I run my own company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.159.53 (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I was one of the main contributors when this article was taken to FA 5 years ago. I am also not a writer and busy in real life; I have barely touched the article since then. I know that others have been keeping it up to date. It may not be optimum now, but certainly not as bad as you say. I think some of your concerns are unfounded. The article does not need to be a collection of every award, honor or list that she has made. More details can be added at List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra if they are noteworthy. Also, we do not need to add who she is dating. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. This article does not have to look like the others; it would be boring if all were the same. The part about her Dad giving her a year would be good though. Please point me to a reliable source for that and I will add it. The part about her mother entering her in Miss World is already in there if you care to read it. Bollyjeff | talk 00:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal life

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I don't understand how come this article doesn't have "personal life" section? Also there is no mention of her reported relations? Not all the tabloid/gossip should be written but the ones that have been reported extensively and those with actual truth in it. Also it is true that Wikipedia is not a gossip site but all the other featured/non-featured but extremely well written articles about artists/celebrities has this section, so why not this? And they are written in Wikipedia manual of style, and not in gossip/breaking news style. Nauriya, Let's talk - 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the 'Early life' section would be a good start for this, but what else is there to say? She has been very tight lipped about her personal life for many years. Point me to some good sources with relevant personal information after her Miss India days and I will add it. Bollyjeff | talk 16:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
She has reportedly been linked to Aseem Merchant back in 2000, then with Akshat Kumar (which likely be not true) then she breifly dated Harman Baweja in a short lived relationship. She was linked with Shahrukh as well and she dated Shahid Kapoor but they never apoke of it. If you google with these names, credible media sources are available. Nauriya, Let's talk - 06:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, she hasn't really spoken about any of these men, and has only made oblique references to some her relationships, for example, this one about Shah Rukh. Unlike some of her contemporaries, say Ranbir or Kareena, who have spoken about who they date, Priyanka has decided not to, and that's something we should take into account. And to be honest, people date all the time, so unless it's a major relationship, I don't think there is any point in mentioning them. Nick Jonas, on the other hand, is the first time Priyanka has gone public with a relationship, so we should definitely include that when they release an official statement about their engagement. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: According to this source, Nikhil Namit, a producer of the film Bharat says, "Priyanka told us she had to exit due to her engagement, two days ago. It was a little unprofessional of her to do it so suddenly." Should we now mention this in the article? What do you think, Bollyjeff and Nauriya? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to mention all of this, Harman and Anees ones were heavily reported, and it has substantial references and I don't think so not including this is based on if she has or has not acknowledged this because I mean who does? But it was reported, we can mention them only but no need to go in details. Also the Nick Jones relationship should be added and it is not gossip. Director Abbas tweet confirmed that she is in relationship with Nick, also all the international and national media have extensively covered them. Nauriya, Let's talk - 14:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This one and that one may have been reported, but guess what, minor rumored relationships are of no consequence in an encyclopedia. However, if we trust Mid-Day to properly quote Nikhil Namit about the engagement, then yes we should include that now, IMO. Bollyjeff | talk 22:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a personal life section including the Jonas info. It could still use more relevant info to beef up that section though. Interestingly enough, the Jonas page does not mention Chopra or this news. Hhmm. Bollyjeff | talk 22:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff:: I think the information is enough. I appreciate the effort. That's exactly what it needed. Yes Jonas article also doesn't have personal life section or any news regarding this. I think we should start the conversation on his talk page, if it is needed. Nauriya, Let's talk - 16:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change Priyanka's current profile picture to this one " https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=lfsPW-TtN8H89QPg4YOADw&q=priyanka+chopra+2018&oq=priyanka+chopra+2018&gs_l=img.1.0.0l10.278.631.0.2067.3.3.0.0.0.0.120.234.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.img..1.2.234....0.tj9p-BXd0nM#imgrc=Tz0I7TqoafIViM: " , use the link to change the picture. The picture is a public domain so can it can be used without copyright .. 183.78.95.11 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: Please review what Public domain means. There is a common misconception that public domain means "available on the web" and this is very wrong. There is a copyright notice on that page ("Copyright © 2018 IWPL. All rights reserved.") and no indication that the image is not covered by that copyright assertion or that the rights for that image have been released. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "Chopra and Jonas became engaged in August 2018." to "Chopra and Jonas got engaged in a traditional Punjabi Roka ceremony. Abhirami49 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done NiciVampireHeart 20:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add the following line to the Infobox (as of Dec 1, 2018): 2600:6C50:6D80:A75:DC35:8BC5:C9C9:776D (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not done. Where exactly, and why? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Tense

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to the article she 'lives in an apartment on the same floor as her family', with sources from 2009 and 2012; presumably now she's married that's not the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.201.152 (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You are probably right. Can you help us by finding a reliable source that says where she lives now and/or from when? Then we can say that she lived with her family up until... Bollyjeff | talk 00:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra, patriotic

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I feel the incident with an activist in LA should be included in the article, and emphasis should be placed in Chopra's answer. CNN,Foxnews, Hinduistantimes, Daily Mail, TMZ, Gulf news, Times of India and many more have reported the incidence. Cinadon36 07:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am only one voice, but I would prefer it not be included. These days any little thing can make news. This does not seem, yet, like a significant event in her life. If it becomes so, it can always be added later. Bollyjeff | talk 15:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I am another voice. She made the decision to become affiliated with the United Nations. She made the decision to tweet something polarizing in the middle of a tense geopolitical situation. She is one of the 100 Most Influential Women on Twitter and her tweets mean far more than the average person's. This is absolutely part of her story and absolutely relevant to her Wikipedia page. This is not something we get to ignore or pass judgement on because of OUR perceptions on its pertinence, and it is certainly not something that most of the media is choosing to ignore either. Postaltoad (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I am another voice! and I believe the beauty con answer should absolutely be included. --Candy bling1 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The story is evolving. Pak minister wants Priyanka Chopra removed as UN Goodwill ambassador for supporting ‘Indian military, Modi govt’. Also, two intersting articles at The Guardian: [1] and [2]. Coverage by New York Times [3], WP [4] Cinadon36 20:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So, if you want to put this at the end of the Philanthropy section, go ahead. Or wait for it to play out, since it is still evolving. Wikipedia is not for current events so much as for history. Bollyjeff | talk 01:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree we should wait at least until UNICEF or Priyanka speak on the matter (although it's not really looking like either of them will?) But this is historical as it has to do with the genocide of Kashmiri Muslims going on now and the fact that it was barely covered in US media until the beautycon LA event Candy bling1 (talk)
I don't see how this is in any way related to philanthropy. It is clearly most pertinent in a controversy section and would likely be lost or effectively miscategorized in a philanthropy section. Wikipedia articles absolutely contain information about current events and developing stories, so I don't see a reason not to add this and update it as events unfold. Postaltoad (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I said that because I thought this was related to her UN work in that section. Also, controversy sections are generally discouraged per WP:CSECTION. Has UNICEF or Priyanka spoke on the matter, as another user suggested, or is this just fading away now? Bollyjeff | talk 18:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

So how about this:

In August 2019, Chopra found herself in the center of controversy when she was confronted by an activist criticizing her about a tweet she posted on February 2019, while tensions amid Pakistan and India were escalating. Chopra in her tweet had hailed India's military forces. The tweet was resurfaced in August 2019 and was met with criticism with the main line of argument being that she was warmongering and that was incompatible with her job as UN Peace Ambassador. Chopra's response was that she is patriotic.[1][2] Pakistan asked for Chopra being sacked by her UN job but UN supported Chopra's right to talk for herself.[3][4]

References

  1. ^ "Priyanka Chopra Came to Talk About Beauty. It Got Political". The New York Times. 2019-08-13. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  2. ^ Guardian staff and agencies (2019-08-13). "Priyanka Chopra accused of 'encouraging nuclear war' with Pakistan". the Guardian. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  3. ^ "Pakistan asks UN to remove Priyanka Chopra as goodwill ambassador". Al Jazeera. 2019-08-21. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  4. ^ Pundir, Pallavi (2019-08-23). "Priyanka Chopra's Controversial Tweet During Indo-Pak Tensions Finds UN Support". Vice. Retrieved 2019-08-25.

Your thoughts pls, fellow wikipedians. Pls feel free to make bold changes.  :) Cinadon36 20:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This works for me. Also, a line about the way in which she was of dismissive of the woman asking the question should be added as well. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Very good, some changes below:

In February 2019, Chopra posted a tweet hailing Indian military forces at a time when India and Pakistan were militarily engaged and a large scale conflict was feared.[1][2] The tweet resurfaced in August 2019 when Chopra was confronted by activist Ayesha Malik, who criticized her tweet as encouraging nuclear war and for being incompatible with her role as a UN Peace Ambassador. Chopra responded that she is "patriotic" and told the activist "You're embarrassing yourself".[3][4] Pakistan's human rights minister Shireen Mazari then wrote a letter to UNICEF chief Henrietta Fore asking for Chopra's removal as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador.[5] The UN responded that Goodwill Ambassadors "retain the right to speak about issues that interest or concern them" when they speak in their personal capacity.[2]

References

  1. ^ Hume, Tim (2019-02-28). "Pakistan and India say they just shot down each other's warplanes". Vice. Retrieved 2019-08-29.
  2. ^ a b Pundir, Pallavi (2019-08-23). "Priyanka Chopra's Controversial Tweet During Indo-Pak Tensions Finds UN Support". Vice. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  3. ^ "Priyanka Chopra Came to Talk About Beauty. It Got Political". The New York Times. 2019-08-13. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  4. ^ Guardian staff and agencies (2019-08-13). "Priyanka Chopra accused of 'encouraging nuclear war' with Pakistan". the Guardian. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  5. ^ "Pakistan asks UN to remove Priyanka Chopra as goodwill ambassador". Al Jazeera. 2019-08-21. Retrieved 2019-08-25.

Postaltoad (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Well done! But I am not very sure if we should use Malik's name. Besides this concern, your suggestion is great! Thumb up from me! Cinadon36 07:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request that we move the paragraph about her interaction with the activist to immediately following the paragraph regarding her UNICEF involvement, since it is most relevant there. Postaltoad (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon 02:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Jhamshedpur, Bihar, India should be changed to Jhamshedpur, Jharkhand, India Theswasman (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: She was born in 1982. Jharkand didn't become a state until 2000. We give place of birth as it was at the time, not based on subsequent changes. Begoon 02:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Too many photos

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article has 13 photos. Just absurd. Especially with the quality of some of them. 115.70.7.33 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not absurd at all, considering the size of the article.--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of negative critical notice

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Should the negative critical notice and poor box office returns of Chopra's Jai Gangaajal be removed, per this edit? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Chopra's performance's reception in this film was similar to that of Deepika Padukone in Bajirao Mastani. Some praised her, some criticized her saying the character was one note and was not given anything to do. Yet you regard Padukone's performance as positive and Chopra's performance as entirely negative, not even mixed as obvious by your addition of a sole negative review and not mixed or a negative and a positive. Nobody is against this being added in Chopra's article but saying she was outright panned is a violation of WP: NPOV. Also, in Chopra's article a lot of her middling films and performances does not have critical analysis of them just like some of her positively reviewed performances. This film's biggest criticism was sidelining of Chopra's character and giving more importance to Jha's character.

This is several of the reviews that proves her performance was not outright panned.Krish | Talk 20:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"but saying she was outright panned " no part of the article says that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not surprisingly you have entirely omitted most of the negative notices:

Plus no reason provided for removing the film's box office performance. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I was middle of writing this section when you filed a complain against me at ANI. I have above said Chopra was not highly praised, I said it had mixed reception. What did you erase by just putting the headline from the sources you provided:
  • The Quint: Even Priyanka for her part is sincere.
  • DNA: This is Priyanka Chopra's film. And while she does justice to her role as Abha, it is her doggedness that shines through.
  • Rediff: Priyanka imbues calm charisma and confidence in a formulaic character yet never pedals on gratuitous feminism.

And, yes, Huffpost and Hindu panned her performance. BUT I never said her performance was praised. Why did you add only the negative review then? It's a violation of WP: NPOV. And my reason for removing the box office is explained in my summary.Krish | Talk 21:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response.Krish | Talk 08:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not a mixed reviewed performance in DDD

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Positives

Negative

22 positive reviews and 3 negative. So why the article makes it seem like Chopra's performance was met with a mixed reception? How is that WP: NPOV?Krish | Talk 01:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
And that is precisely why WP:BALANCE and WP:NEUTRALITY must be maintained. "Your" version of the article makes it seem like the actress did not receive a single negative critical notice since 2008, which is not true for most actors in the world. Overwhelming reviews for her performances are already positive in the text, which is why balance must be maintained by mentioning some of the negative comments which she also received. Having said that, the 2nd DDD review in the article is not negative at all. All that it talks about her being "constrained" by her hair and makeup, which is a right way to the balance out the 1st review mentioned which is overwhelmingly positive. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you want to say that "just to attain WP: NPOV, we are supposed to show a generally positively received performance as negative? Am I missing something here? As per this (Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.) it is violation of wikipedia guidelines.Krish | Talk 06:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
"tiny minorities" would be 1 negative review for 100 positives, which does not seem the case anywhere. Which is why per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view we should show "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Things here does not work according to you or me, things here work according to Wikipedia rules, one of which says If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.Krish | Talk 08:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV violations in the article

Latest comment: 4 years ago48 comments9 people in discussion

This article has been WP: FA since 2013 and the article was stable till 2018 until Kriumk 2.0 changed several things in article without any discussions yet asks me to add even a comma by taking his permission. When I tried fixing those NPOV-violating additions made by Krimuk 2.0, he reverted me every time, even for non controversial edits like commas and stuff such as "In addition to her acting career, Chopra is noted for her philanthropic work" in the lead which is a known fact and has an entire section in the body. This was there in the article for over 6 six years.

The lead: No mention of her being a philantropist.

  • It had "In addition to her acting career, Chopra is noted for her philanthropic work" line since a very long time but he removed it. When I added he reverted me.

Here are few things that were changed by Krimuk 2.0 which actually violates WP: NPOV.

He added Mixed reviews to Chopra's acclaimed performances like Barfi, DDD, and Mary Kom

  • The discussion about DDD is above and I tried having a discussion with the editor above but he did not respond after a point.Barfi and Mary Kom need not to be even debated as these are considered her most acclaimed roles but I am ready to provide evidences.

Wider recognition to recognition for Barfi and Mary Kom section name change

  • So recognition for mixed reviewed performances? This section was named Widespread recognition/success since a very long time until that editor thought it should be according to him, ignoring wikipedia rules that says a section ttitle should be a summary of the overall contents of the section. Chopra's most successful films came in this period yet, according to the editor only recognition of her mixed reviewed performances should count. Why her most successful phase of her career is named after recognition for two films only"? Plus several Bollywood actresses have a section named like success, continued success, widespread success etc. So why it should be different for Chopra?
  • He had removed a positive review of Baywatch and left the mixed one (which I had added in 2017) even though Chopra's performance was largely positively reviewed.

Negative review for Jai Gangaajal

  • The discussion about this is above and I tried having a discussion with the editor above but he did not respond after a point.

NOTE: He said in the above discussion that he did these changes for WP: BALANCE but WP: RULES does not say "add minority negative reviews to widely/largely praised performances just for the sake of BALANCE". It actually says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." So when I tried correcting these mistakes, he reverted me every time and accused me of whitewashing. I would like to invite all the editors to look into the matter.Krish | Talk To Me 10:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


I would like to invite my fellow Indian editors to contribute to this discussion: Kailash29792, SNUGGUMS, Numerounovedant and Veera Narayana. Thanks.Krish | Talk To Me 13:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, Bollyjeff was one of the FAC nominators. I hope he too will take part in this. Since I have never (and possibly never will) attempted a FAC for any BLP, I may not know what to keep or what not. But having seen Barfi and Dil Dhadakne Do, I can say her performances were quite good in them, and if professional reviews shared this view they should not be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
All I have to say is that this article should have a neutral tone without undue weight on any of its aspects. I don't have the time, interest, or patience to go through specific parts of the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Kailash29792 and SNUGGUMS! That's exactly my point is. Important aspects should be mentioned such as philanthropy in lead, and if a performance has received significant praise then it should be presented as per the Wikipedia guidelines. I don't see any reasons of adding a negative review (she was great but...) for her acclaimed performances. In case of Barfi, ("a tad showy"), Mary Kom (trashy screenplay), Dil Dhadakne Do (a highly critical review) and Jai Gangaajal (only a negative review). I suggest removing Jai Gangaajal review as whole (even though her performance was largely praised as per above) because this article does not mention reviews for all her performances especially unpopular ones. Also, sections are named as per the summary and trajectory of the overall phase. So I still don't get why It was changed. And, I am sorry for forgetting Bollyjeff.Krish | Talk To Me 16:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality is important. No questions. Beyond that, i have no interest in this particular case. I, however, shall consider this a reminder that people do remember me. Kind Regards, Veera Narayana 12:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I will always remember you Veera Narayana as you are one of our best editors here.Krish | Talk To Me 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I will be fixing some of the NPOV-violating edits for neutrality similar to other Bollywood actresses' articles. Thanks for the discussion guys.Krish | Talk To Me 19:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Kailash29792, SNUGGUMS, and Veera Narayana please check my edit in the article as I have tried to fix it and make it similar to other Bollywood actresses' articles on Wikipedia.Krish | Talk To Me 21:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm not interested in reviewing the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It's okay SNUGGUMS, Kailash29792 and Veera Narayana can check the edits and look for mistakes. And, thanks for your comments in this discussion. It is very much appreciated.Krish | Talk To Me 01:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There has been no such consensus in this talk page, as claimed in this edit. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Black Kite, Canterbury Tail, and JzG: could you look into another violation by Krish!, which was earlier highlighted here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to ask again each and every editor to look at this again. Kailash29792, SNUGGUMS, Numerounovedant, Bollyjeff and Veera Narayana. As per the discussion it was Consensed that "this article should have a neutral tone without undue weight" and the edits you made gives undue weight to a lot of things. Plus I have clearly stated above that this article was changed significantly by you without any discussion which violates NPOV rules of Wikipedia. Articles of other Bollywood actresses such as Kareena Kapoor (mentions success 2 times in the section title), Deepika Padukone (only 2 negative reviews mentioned) and others are a big example how Bollywood articles are. And this article violates NPOV RULES OF Wikipedia and you are constantly reverting my edit including the archive links that were added but Wikipedia rules states that No One Owns any articles yet you seem to think you do considering you reverted a concensed version where "undue weight" was fixed.Krish | Talk To Me 18:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Not how WP:CONSENSUS or WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO works. Also, WP:CIR. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Is that why you changed this article significantly without discussion and altered Consensed' version of Bajirao Mastani without any discussions?Krish | Talk To Me 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm now clueless, I hope any admin will interfere. Cyphoidbomb, can you please review Krish's edits and see if they did not violate any policy? Ditto with Krimuk. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Admins have already been pinged. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Everybody agreed on removing the NPOV violating texts from the article. How is that not a consensus?Krish | Talk To Me 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is the discussion where "this article should have a neutral tone without undue weight" exists? And also, where is the discussion which highlighted what specifically the community considered non-neutral tone and undue weight? Also, I thought you weren't going to edit this article anymore without discussing specific changes first. Wasn't that something you said in the last ANI, Krish? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb I have clearly stated above about different things and have provided all the evidences in above two discussions that negative reviews were mentioned for positively reviewed performances and the name changes of sections that were done without discussion. After editing the article, I asked all the editors to look at my edit and see if any mistakes are there. Kailash thanked my edits.Krish | Talk To Me 19:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You didn't answer my questions. Also, in what discussion did the community agree that the performances you think were received positively, were in fact received positively? And where is the discussion that section headings should be changed to X? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
CyphoidbombAs per the every review listed above that properly indicates that her performances were acclaimed but the article shows negative reviews is a violation of WP rules. The articles mentions her positively reviewed performances as mixed and negative which you can clearly see above is not the case. How is changing of section names even controversial considering section names are given as per the overall summary of a section and a significant period summary? Everyone said "undue weight" should be removed. Kailash clearly above said her performance in DDD and Barfi were acclaimed yet the article gave undue weight to negative reviews which were added by Krimuk 2.0 without any discussion.Krish | Talk To Me 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I think the article is getting too long (it already has 337 sources), and that we shouldn't be adding reviews for every new film at this point; she been in 50+ now. It was fine in the beginning, when she was establishing herself in the industry, but now its just not necessary. So, the best way to avoid conflict between editors about review on certain films is just to leave them out. The latest section title reads: Expansion into American film and television (2015–present). Lets let the section be mostly about that then. Fore the older sections, I don't see why any changes are necessary since whatever reviews are there have been there since the article went FA. Make sense? Bollyjeff | talk 20:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Bollyjeff I have been saying this since a long time. The older sections were changed in 2018 without any discussion that violates NPOV. Mixed reviews were added to her acclaimed performances in Barfi, Mary Kom and Dil Dhadakne Do which gave "undue weight". Also the names of the sections were changed so that should be re-changes to the way this article was for over 6 years as sections are named after the overall summary of a period. And her philanthropic work should be mentioned in the lead. The Jai Gangaajal review and figures should be removed for more balance as this article was written in a way that did not include reviews and box office prospects of her every film. I still don't understand the motive behind adding negative reviews for her acclaimed performances which is a violation of Wikipedia rules.Krish | Talk To Me 20:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't really interested in commenting on whatever it is that's happening here, but have been pinged far too many times. And now that I'm here, I somewhat agree with Bollyjeff here. Why was there a need to suddenly change significant portions of an article that went through an extensive FAC process. I'm sure everyone involved in the discussion at the time would have seen things for what they were and only then have come to a point where the prose was at its readable best. That said, I do not intend to read the article in its completion as it's probably one of the longest we have on a film personality. There's obviously parts that are more important than others, but all of that would've been discussed at the FAC. Things should be crisp and concise for an article this size and If you ask me, do away with all the film and tv reviews that don't offer worthwhile commentary on Chopra's acting. What do they add to the article anyway?

So in short, I'd go back to the FAC version wherever possible and keep things bare-boned. Once there, then you can discuss what can be done to improve the article. That is if the editors can fathom working together. VedantTalk 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

One last thing: From.paat experience, this discussion is quite futile as you'll probably need a formal RfC to get somewhere (unless the two of you are willing to work towards an amicable solution). Pinging an exhaustive list of editors (however neutral they might be on the issue) and asking them to talk will not help. VedantTalk 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both Numerounovedant and Bollyjeff that the the article needs to be restored to the way it was for a very long time until that editor changed it without any discussion, violating several Wikipedia guidelines in process. The current version violates so many Wikipedia rules: NPOV, "undue weight", misleading edits (claims of panned reviews for acclaimed performances, as proven above, and most importantly WP: OWN. Also, I had to ping a lot of editors because none of them are really interested in giving inputs and most of the Indian film editors have left Wikipedia. I would like to invite Cyphoidbomb and Kailash29792 for what they think after Bollyjeff and Vedant's points.Krish | Talk To Me 01:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
"the article needs to be restored to the way it was for a very long time" That's not what they are saying. The FAC was a long time ago (in 2013) before the films whose negative reviews and box office you want to remove were even released. So obviously, that argument doesn't apply here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Plus, this is a case of the editor pinging his "friends" for opinions, which amounts to Wikipedia:Canvassing. We need uninvolved editors and admins weighing in. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Precisely. If neither of you are willing to budge, stop wasting time. Pinging a few editors and having the other party accuse you of canvassing and/or indulging with the editors who were invited and then call them "friends?" of the other party might be a fun way of spending your days, but I'd rather see this go to a formal RfC straightway. This is ridiculous. VedantTalk 08:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Please, WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. You don't need to care about how I spend my days. Also, the comment wasn't in any way directed towards you, but in the lack of neutral wording in the editor's request for comment. WP:APPNOTE says that "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief", which in this case, it was not. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, same. My comments weren't directed towards any party, just the ludicrousness of it all. For a conversation that has more WP: Policy this, Policy than actual words, no one bringing up an neutral RfC as a solution it's beyond comprehension. Go for a fresh formal RfC is all I have to say. VedantTalk 09:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

None of the editors I pinged are my friends. These are the only Indian editors who understand Bollywood articles that are left on Wikipedia. Plus, the negative reviews you claim that I am trying to remove is an accusation and a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK directed towards me. So let's see how negatively those performances were reviewed as per your claim.

  • Barfi!: One of her most acclaimed performance but you added "a tad showy" to show it was mixed which is a violation of WP: UNDUE WEIGHT policy. You claim it was present since it passed FA.
Your claim is False: The FA passed version of Barfi does not say "a tad showy".
  • Mary Kom: The film has 83% on RT so "trashy screenplay" is an "undue weight" especially in her article. A violation of WP: UNDUE WEIGHT policy.
  • Dil Dhadakne Do: 22 positive reviews, 2 negative reviews and 1 mixed review.
Your claim and Edit: Negative/Mixed - Violation of WP: UNDUE WEIGHT policy.
  • Jai Gangaajal: 14 positive reviews, 2 negative reviews and 1 mixed review.
Your claim and Edit: Entirely Negative - A strong violation of WP: UNDUE WEIGHT policy.
  • Name Changes of two sections, this and this: Why change titles of the sections without any reasons as the current names violates WP: NPOV as it is not consistent with articles of other Bollywood actresses' (of her stature) articles?
Title of a section is an overall summary of the phase that a section discusses. The lead says Chopra regained success in 2008 so that is why it was named "renewed success" after the section were re-distributed as per year and phase wise when the article got bigger. Now coming to another controversial name change from "Widespread success" (the lead again says wider success/recognition) to just "Recognition for Barfi! and Mary Kom". This phase was her most successful box office wise and it is mentioned in the section that she starred in her biggest success of her career (some of the hits were biggest of all time at that period). Plus Mary Kom was a huge hit considering it still holds the record for the biggest opening day for a female led film. So why is her box office successes not considered in naming this section that covers her most successful phase and just her two acclaimed roles (?) which are not even acclaimed as per your edits because you have showed them as mixed.

All these things show how WP: INACCURATE and MISLEADING information has been added in this article which violates not only WP: NPOV but several other guidelines. All of these misleading information that should have been immediately removed given the various sources that proves how false these are.Krish | Talk To Me 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is wrong that I am saying here? How is this false information and misleading edits allowed on Wikipedia especially in an WP:FEATURED ARTICLE. This is crystal clear yet nobody seems to question it but why Kailash29792, SNUGGUMS, Numerounovedant, Bollyjeff and Veera Narayana and Cyphoidbomb? [Sorry for pinging everybody again but this needs to be fixed immediately and nobody needs to read the whole article as the problem lies in just these 2 points which is showing well-received performances as negative and changing of section names as per the wish of an editor who has used such names in a lot of his own articles].Krish | Talk To Me 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Not that I condone misleading edits, but please don't ping me here any further; I'm still not interested in reviewing this article's content. I thought my previous comment made it obvious I didn't want additional pings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just so we're clear, Krish, prior to this edit by Krimuk, where the "a tad showy" content was added, the article, a Featured Article, contained the fluffy "rave reviews" and "unanimous praise", the latter of which is unachievable hyperbole, since that would mean that nobody in the world had a problem with her acting. So, I don't see any particular problem with those items being softened, and I don't exactly see a problem with Krimuk adding the "a tad showy" language. There were two very complimentary statements about her, then one very, very slight criticism. I mean "a tad showy" is not a slap in the face, it's a gentle poke. So I'm not really sure what your objection is here, so your upset here seems disproportionate to any problem that I see with it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
So you as an administrator had criticised me several times for adding "a huge flop" to some articles saying that was not a neutral language but are here advocating "a tad showy" to an acclaimed performance is okay with you? I mean if her performances are acclaimed as per the sources combined than are you saying we should write a fiction and change them to mixed and negative on our own? Can we add negative stuff just for the sake of it? Right now her 2015 to present section has mostly negative reviews added by that editor and you don't see any problems? I don't have any problems with her panned performances being shown panned but why show her acclaimed performances as mixed? So according to you 22 positive reviews & 2 negative reviews = panned, 14 positive reviews & 2 negative reviews = Panned? So this misleading and false information is alright according to you? Wow!Krish | Talk To Me 20:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Krish! as you know I was a major contributor to this article and helped promote it to FA along with you, but I have to agree with Cyphoidbomb on this one. The edits were reasonable. You are coming off like the worlds biggest fanboy with this stuff. Some editors seems to have their favorite actress, and want them to have a "better" wikipedia page than anyone else's favorite. How can you spend so much time and effort on this? Please just let it go. Bollyjeff | talk 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Bollyjeff A fanboy would say "remove her negative reviews for Kismat, Plan, Asambhav, Barsaat, Love Story 2050, Krrish 3, A Kid Like Jake, and Isn't It Romantic". I am not saying that. I am saying fix NPOV-violating edits that shows her well-received performances like Barfi!, DDD, Mary Kom and Jai Gangaajal as NEGATIVE/MIXED when they are not and it can be WP:VERIFIABLE via dozen of sources. It is a violation of Wikipedia policies. If you notice, that editor has added reviews for her every release after 2015 and all of them are negative. So much for WP:BALANCE?, right? If any edit breaks Wikipedia rules then every editor has a right to question it. So according to you 22 positive article is negative?Krish | Talk To Me 00:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
So you as an administrator had criticised me several times for adding "a huge flop" to some articles saying that was not a neutral language but are here advocating "a tad showy" to an acclaimed performance is okay with you? Are you kidding me? On the scale of hyperbole, "a huge flop" is way out there compared to "a tad showy". Further, it's a quote, which allows us a little leeway. That said, (just to anticipate your counter-argument,) we use some common sense. If a reviewer called a film a "steaming pile of shit", that probably wouldn't be acceptable because it places undue emphasis on an exaggerated opinion (one of the reasons why we don't declare films "rotten" or "all-time blockbuster status" or "disaster"). Further, you appear to be confused about what a neutral point of view means. It doesn't mean that someone who had a widely acclaimed performance is immune from criticism. That's part of presenting a neutral point of view. If the criticism outweighed the positive, that probably wouldn't be neutral. In the context of a performance that was widely acclaimed, "a tad showy" isn't even hot sauce, it's ketchup. Example text Straw man argument. I never said any of that stuff, so your argument is totally moot. Look mate, a lot of stuff has been changed to various articles in the last year and a half. I don't think it's a good use of anybody's time to have to justify every edit you disagree with. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

CyphoidbombThat editor had used Box Office Bomb for a film that was just a flop & had used a fully negative reviews for a number of films yet it was there until I fixed it for NPOV. So don't tell me there are no misleading edits in the article. Also, you said "If the criticism outweighed the positive, that probably wouldn't be neutral." That's exactly is the problem I am trying to refer here. How is 2 negative reviews>>22 positive in case of Dil Dhadakne Do and 2 negative reviews>>14positive reviews for Jai Gangaajal? What logic is being used in this article? I mean is that really hard to understand that the negatives are being FAVORED in this article when the positives are 11 and 7 times more than the negatives. Is this really hard to understand that it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT?Krish | Talk To Me 02:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You raised a question about the totally innocuous "a tad showy" line, which you apparently found to be grossly inappropriate, and I attempted to provide context and present a contrary perspective, but apparently that's not enough for you, so now you want me to analyse and justify every other change you disagree with. Nobody has time to go through every bloody problem you have with the article and justify it to your satisfaction. I haven't looked at any of the other changes, and I won't because this isn't something I'm interested in. This crusade to restore this article to some version you agreed with in 2018 is not constructive and you are wasting editors' time by nitpicking every single change that's happened since then. You are also raising questions about your ability to navigate these areas neutrally, since you seem to have very strong opinions about various subjects, and I was under the impression when looking at your unblock request, that you were not interested in confrontational interactions. Maybe I misunderstood your position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb I am not being confrontational and look it up I had listed five to six issues above not just "a tad showy". I think you misunderstood. Read my text above. Bollyjeff and Numerounovedant wanted this article to get restored and I just agreed with them. I never asked anyone to restore it to that version. In fact I appreciate some of the changes made by that editor. He had tightened the prose and did copy-editing which was necessary and very nice of him. I am against the blatant NPOV violation in the article regarding negative reviews being added to her well received performances and I have listed all of them above. You somehow missed it. Read it again. And I have given sources for every claim of mine. But you got angry and accused me of being confrontational which I am not.Krish | Talk To Me 03:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, let me weigh in on this one. Krish, I totally understand you because you feel very strongly about it and since you've worked hard on this article, you are genuinely convinced that yours is probably the right way to go. But more than that, I totally understand Krimuk's revisions. I think his motive is just to contribute some proportion of balance to this article, which seems to be lacking. It is a very good article but it often feels like one that was probably written by someone who is particularly fond of Chopra. Nothing wrong with it, she's a big star and it's more than rational to expect this, but it must be toned down - just a little.
Specifically, I can't understand why it's such a big deal that someone would mention that she was "a tad showy", when that same someone hails her performance as one of the greatest! On the contrary, it's a compliment, in the presence of which even this small dig is fun and part of the praise. We're talking about one of the biggest stars, how can this possibly harm her? If I were to edit Amitabh Bachchan's article now, it probably wouldn't be easy to add some scathing review about him. But this is our duty. I think it's important that people who are less involved work on it. Similarly, what's wrong with a critic saying it was time for her to be "a little messy: all these not-a-hair-out-place roles are making her constrained." - it's not even criticism of her acting, or not even criticism in the first place, just measured commentary on her choices and more of a career suggestion.
As for the reviews, what I meant when I said that it could feel a little unbalanced is the general context of the article. Again, just a little! She's a big star, and she's not where she is for lack of talent. However, why are there no reviews of her performance in the Zanjeer remake? I'm sure they weren't very good. Moreover, you can see here a very old concern of mine where I questioned the neutrality of the article, and it's still relevant today. This archived section I started includes links for every quote - her performance in 7 Khoon Maaf drew quite a lot of dismissing reviews, and yet this article includes two very positive reviews. Here they are (links in the linked archive):
  • NYT say, "She’s more conceit than character, and Ms. Chopra, though charming as always, can’t make her cohere."
  • Khalid Mohamed says, "As for Priyanka Chopra, she lacks range. Once again after What’s Your Raashee, she can’t multi-task or shade her part at all. If there’s anything to show her alterations of attitude and age, it’s merely in her changes of wigs and cosmetics."
  • Anupama Chopra says, "But beyond a point, even she can’t prop up the sagging plot."
  • Raja Sen says, "Priyanka tries her best, but is simply not a good enough actress to justify being in a role this nuanced and demanding... she never comes close to being convincing. She turns hints into signals, happiness into hysterics, her every movement an act... she's an actress unworthy of this season."
  • The Hindu says, "Priyanka Chopra churns out a rather uneven, inconsistent performance that's further botched up by bad make-up."
  • Express India says, "Priyanka Chopra fills out Susanna to the best of her ability, which isn’t spectacular, but is never standard-procedure"
And here I found even more negative reviews:
  • Mid-day "Priyanka Chopra brings a zestiness to Sussanna that kinda makes you forgive her character's assassinations at first. In the second half she gets unbearably redundant."
  • Outlook: "Priyanka’s patchy make-up and abrupt aging is gauche"
Now I'm sure there were many other positive reviews, but is the representation on the article fair? I do expect you just to think it over. Shahid • Talk2me 03:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello there! Shahid, yeah seems like Chopra's performance in 7 Khoon Maaf was similarly received as Deepika Padukone in Bajirao Mastani, and Chaapak. Remember what you said about her performance in Bajirao Mastani on its talk page? Here it is "Throwing many quotes from the same reviews (and misquoting some) does not hold water. You're ignoring the many positive reactions she received for her work, which I listed. Out of the reviews you have cited, many actually criticize the character being one-dimensional. The only reviews which are critical of her performance are Raja Sen, Sukanya Verma, Dawn, and Deccan Chronicle, with Subhash K Jha expecting more but not actually panning it to the core. The other reviews are more critical of the character itself being one-dimensional or badly written - including Mid-day ("handicapped with an unidimensional role"), Rajeev Masand ("Her character, though, is strictly one-dimensional"), Sonia Chopra of Sify ("with a hollow characterization that is given repetitive dialogue"). That leaves you with just very few negative reviews, and you cannot ignore a dozen of other reviews which provide positive comments." So I think this discussion should also be held on Deepika Padukone's article which has just 2 negative reviews mentioned.Krish | Talk To Me 03:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Now Jokes aside, You should start this dscussion in a new section and not in this section as it is about her well-rceived film performances being shown as negative by Krimuk2.0. Also, her performance in Zanjeer is not mentioned because a lot of her rperformance reviews are not mentioned in the article. This is how Dr.. Blofeld wrote this article. So you should ask him that.Krish | Talk To Me 03:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Krish, I didn't misquote a single quote. Everything is copy-and-paste right from the review. Moreover, most of them, with the exception of Outlook, do talk about the performance, including The Hindu, which calls her performance "uneven, inconsistent", Express India which discusses her "ability, which isn't spectacular", and Khalid Mohamed describing her lacking "range". Why didn't you mention them as well? This brings this all up to 8 negative reviews of her performance.
But then again, you're missing the point, it's not even about how many reviews said what, it's about the extent of the "acclaim", as you put it. I really, really don't care about Deepika Padukone's article, if you think the neutrality is disputed there as well, then be bold and edit it, or start a discussion and see what others think. If you want I can look at it, too. Otherwise I really don't understand why you're bringing this up to this discussion, it's just totally irrelevant.
As for Zanjeer, it was just an example, saying it was Blofeld who did it is not a valid argument, because if you feel so strongly about one part, why wouldn't you feel the same about others? Again, I'm not saying this necessarily needs to be noted, it's just my way to explain that more balancing could only help the article you've worked so hard on.
Now, I'm not going to make any edits now, I'm presenting my concerns to you so that you could consider them because I want you to try and rethink if your whole fight is really worth the energy and if the article really represents Chopra. Although our last discussion wasn't very pleasant on your part, I seriously don't want to upset you or make you feel as though your efforts are not appreciated. Just reconsider your stands. Shahid • Talk2me 03:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Shshshsh You are like an idol to me. When I first saw what you achieved with the article of one of my most favourite actresses at a time when it was super hard, I was in awe and still am. Your contribution to Indian article is the reason why I started editing here. I was inspired by you. You should know I really respect you but it is true that I don't get respect here for editing and contributing towards 48 Featured/good articles. Now coming to your post, no where on Wikipedia it is written "in order to achieve balance you have to show positive stuff as negative". If you look at her 2015 to present section, all you will see are negative stuff which I don't mind as her Hollywood performances were panned/mixed. My concern is about presenting positively reviewed performances as negative in case of Dil Dhdakne Do and Jai Gangaajal. It is against Wikipedia policy to as biased/false edits are not good because it is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and it violates WP:NPOV. And yes, Deepika Padukone's article does have Neutrality issue as her article is written in a way as if she is the best actress on this planet and if you ask me to prove it I have sources to prove it.Krish | Talk To Me 04:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

this page is too laudatory

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

too many details about he career - and presented in the most positive light. reads like a press release/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by UBU07 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree on this this article is biased and looking like propoganda to promot her in USA. Claiming she is highest paid actress, biggest entertainer of India. This is not true. She don't live in India from last 4 yrs and lots of new actresses became popular in that time, she is not highest paid actress of India, why? Beacuse she didn't worked in India from 2,3 years. Holland Tok (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request on August 6 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Request to update text in Early Life section where Ladakh is mentioned geographically incorrect. please change "cold northwestern Indian desert region" with "cold north-eastern Indian desert region"

  Not done: It certainly looks more west than east. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Pls add that Priyanka Chopra is BVLGARI new global ambassador

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Priyanka Chopra has been claimed as the new global ambassador of BVLGARI, this year 2021.. https://flaunt.com/content/bvlgari-priyanka-chopra-jonas Ka903 (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

She produced a bhojapuri film

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bam Bam Bol rahe he Kashi - a bhojapuri film, she produced. Source - https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/priyanka-chopras-controversies/pc-ayesha-mehra/photostory/49289195.cms Holland Tok (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

See her filmography. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

All due respect to Priyanka, I love her but...

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

She is not the highest paid actress of India in present 2021. She left India long time ago and don't work in Bollywood. Her last significant role was of Kashibai in 3 years ago. I suggest remove that she is highest paid actress of India. Source - 1.https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268258/india-best-paid-female-actors-by-earnings-per-film/ Per India Today Dipka Padukone is Ind's highest paid actress.source- https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/celebrities/story/deepika-padukone-on-being-india-s-highest-paid-actress-a-part-of-me-feels-guilty-1607511-2019-10-09. Holland Tok (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Aslo the line says that, She is most popular entertainer of India, it is also false, India have 29 states and only folks of 6 or 7 states speak & understand Hindi language properly, others watch regional & Hollywood movies more than bollywood so she is not span Ind entertainer, in South India other actresses's are more famous than her. Take a look of most popular, most entertainer actress of South India, this part have approx 50% India's land. Top 25 Most Beautiful South Indian Actress Name, Top 25 Most Beautiful South Indian Actress Name, source-https://en.janbharattimes.com/entertainment/most-beautiful-south-indian-actress-name-photos%3Famp&ved=2ahUKEwi3j6qSxvn0AhVfwTgGHfpNAV0QFnoECAUQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2tQnh0ubVTaZrLBbMAc2Bn All this lead section is trying to portrait a image Priyanka Chopra to the world & USA readers that she is the biggest film actress of India, which not true. It looks like someone doing propoganda to promot her. It is like fooling readers. Holland Tok (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Holland Tok: "Chopra is one of India's highest-paid", can you read it? It is said in the article as "one of" not "the most". I don't know why you are trying to do here but the article never says she is the highest-paid Indian actress. This article cites sources to prove any claims in it and if it is not, it will be removed. However, the most popular entertainer part is already sourced and it does not need a source from 2021 to claim that she is because she still is popular and active until now. Can you prove your own claim that "only folks of 6 or 7 states speak & understand Hindi language properly"? Did you know that there is no Berlin Wall in India that divides people in the West and East Berlin? Did you know that people can be bilingual; people in Kerala can speak Tamil and people in Maharashtra can speak Telugu? May I know what your point is? You can still go outside or to the other sides of India without any difficulty.
People can watch her movies at theatres with subtitles; translators exist. It does not matter if it's only six or seven states, she is still popular and the media says she is. Do you have proof to claim it's wrong? Can you give me an article saying that she's not popular? This article is not trying to make her have an image of the best actress of India, but it's all said by reliable sources and you can click those numbers in the end of a sentence to read the article cited by this article. If you think it's biased, then don't read this article because Wikipedia is not the only source you can click on Internet. The article just resays what it's in the media and journalists and newspapers have said about her. You can read books or articles about her everywhere if you have some money. Once more, the article never claims she is the most popular or highest-paid actress; she is ONE OF the most popular and highest-paid actressES.
Her leave from India has nothing to do here. She still has Indian citizenship and she has not been an American citizen, so she is still Indian. Please make a structured argument next time and stop saying stupid things before you do your research. Anything in this article are well cited and you can dislike it but you can't remove it solely due to your disagreement with what the article says about her even though it is cited from reliable sources such as Rediff.com and The Express Tribune. Your feelings are not reliable sources; don't forget, Bajirao Mastani was released six years ago not three. I can see here that you are so jealous of her, but sadly reputable newspapers have said so. I wish someone heals your jealousy, which apparently would not happen because you are already using your feelings to prove your claim. Thank you and stay envy. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Her daughter’s name is Malti Marie Chopra Jonas. 

2603:7080:8F03:BF00:51B:B4C8:70AE:A4A9 (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priyanka_Chopra/Archive_5&oldid=1246417905"