Talk:Preity Zinta

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preity Zinta. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060323185651/http://www.businesswireindia.com/PressRelease.asp?b2mid=9273 to http://www.businesswireindia.com/PressRelease.asp?b2mid=9273

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth

Your attention is drawn to this report on WP:ERRORS by The Rambling Man : "wow, just wow, an FA! The one and only source for her birth date implies she was born on 31 March". Per WP:V and WP:BLPSOURCES, please do not change it without a high-quality reliable source. It is unacceptable that such unverified claims on living people exist in a featured article - if this is typical of the article's factual accuracy, we should raise a FA review and get it thoroughly re-checked, or delisted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't be an arse Ritchie333, no need for that tone. This has had a lot of thought gone into it, though I've not looked at it much over the last ten years! Shshshsh I'm sure will answer this one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what tone problems there are above (unless you're talking about TRM's comment, in which case he'll answer for himself) - but WP:BLPSOURCES is one of the most serious policies we must adhere to - we have to get the article right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Twitter she's been celebrating her birthday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Blof, for stepping in. The mistake was on the Tribune article, not on this page. Mistakes happen, and I might have missed it. I obviously know for a fact that today is her birthday (from interviews and other stuff) but a proper source was just added. Twitter of course shows her celebrating with her friends and thanking her fans and followers for their birthday wishes, which is another piece of evidence. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sahid. I was having difficulty determining which date was right, and frustrated that people were just reverting without supplying an additional source. Unfortunately the confusion has meant she couldn't be featured on the main page today. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent removal of content

User:Melcous removed sourced content which had been discussed by numerous editors before, without discussing it. Sourced content was removed, and sources were removed as well. If anything, the lead is a summary and not a review, it takes into consideration Zinta's work as discussed later on in the article, and not her achievements as suggested by Melcous. The information that was removed includes:

• "After graduating with degrees in English honours and criminal psychology" - why is that wrong?
• The mention of some films being "top-grossing production" and one being her biggest commercial success, is nothing but an objective representation of facts, which are properly sourced.
• "she is a social activist, a television presenter, and a regular stage performer" - a fair description of additional work she has done.
• "These controversies include her being the only witness not to retract in court her earlier statements against the Indian mafia during the 2003 Bharat Shah case, for which she was awarded the Godfrey Phillips National Bravery Award." - a highly publicized case which was, at the time, reported all over the Indian and the international press.
• A tag was added for the claim that "her film roles along with her screen persona have been credited with contributing to a change in the concept of a Hindi film heroine, and won her several accolades" - if you look at the "Media image and artistry" section, you will see proper references to who exactly said it - critics' reviews of her impact appear in that section, quotes from books and media reports. One such example is the book 'Once Upon a Time in Bollywood', according to which Zinta "resists patriarchal constraints through her modern lifestyle and the controversial roles she chooses." There's no doubt that since then, actresses like Vidya Balan have raised the bar even further, but her work seems to have contributed to this change in the long run.
• "These accomplishments have established her as a leading actress of Hindi cinema" - I wonder why it's considered a problem if it's backed up by sources - should Wikipedia be apologetic in view of actors' success? Success is not a bad word, if its use is justified and supported by reliable sources, I can't see why mentioning it is a problem (as long as it's overused). Take another FA, Angelina Jolie, which says, "As a public figure, Jolie has been cited as one of the most influential and powerful people in the American entertainment industry. For a number of years, she was cited as the world's most beautiful woman by various media outlets, and her personal life is the subject of wide publicity." - I see nothing which is subjective there, these are actual facts.
• The Early life section had been trimmed and shortened prior to the FAC. The information of Zinta's childhood is very much relevant in a biographical page about her.
• The addition of the peacock tag is in my book pure wikilawyering. There isn't a single instance where the article makes independent claims, which are not attributed to secondary sources. Even critics' reviews are used to the most objective effect - the article shows such remarks where critics describe her as a "teenybopper", an "ornament", "insufferable", and "a shadow of her past". It even mentions a "marked period of decline in her popularity" (which perhaps should be mentioned in the lead as well).

The article has been copyedited by numerous editors, and the relevance of each piece of information was observed before it was finally included. As you can see, it is well-balanced. If there's disagreement, that's why we have this talk page for. Such massive removal of content must be discussed first, particularly considering the fact that its inclusion is nothing but pure consensus - going through the FAC, the archives of this very talk page, might help. We had a similar debate on Talk:Rani Mukerji with Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs), the writer of several BLP featured articles on actresses, and I'd take this opportunity to call his attention to this page as well, as this seems to be quite uncalled-for practice by some users off late. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, Shahid. You have my full support. This culture of tagging and removing well-cited information from articles is very harmful. There's a reason why a process such as the FAC exists, and editors must exhibit caution when they go on a cutting spree. Of course there is scope for improvement, but it needs to be constructive; the talk page exists for that very reason. Do these editors really think that adding tags help in any way?

Coming to Zinta, I'm in agreement with your restorations, Shahid. This article has been a gold-standard for most of us who work on Indian film-related articles, and as a young editor many moons ago, it set a template for me to expand articles of Zinta's contemporaries, several of which are now FAs. As for the issues highlighted, I have to opine that this article is neutrally written, that Zinta did achieve the highest praise and fame that an actress in India could achieve in the 2000s, and that both Mukerji and Zinta were responsible for more urbane, modern representation of Indian women on screen, which the article rightfully says "go against Indian traditional mores". All of which has been verified by multiple WP:RS.

As Shahid pointed out above, yes, there has been a significant decline in her popularity since 2007 due to the blatant sexism and ageism against so-called "older" women in the industry, but that doesn't take away from the significant achievements of Zinta in the early 2000s. Anyway, I hope that this matter can now be resolved, and that we can all find better a use of our time on Wikipedia -- which is to say we expand articles and not tag and butcher the already expanded, FA-class ones.

P.S: Shahid, I must add that I'm repeatedly surprised at your ability to handle difficult situations with such remarkable patience. Very inspiring, indeed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Preity-Zinta-20.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Zinta MIFF11.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Preity Zinta New Dp.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Addition

Dear Lectonar I work as an agency representative of Preity Zinta. So she had personally requested to make these changes to her wikipedia pagePriety Zinta but these changes keep getting reverted:

These changes are requested by her :

1. | image = New Priety Zinta by Abhishek Pate.jpg

  | caption            = PrietyZinta in 2019

2. Following Heaven on Earth, Preity Zinta was highest-paid actress till 2008, when she decided to take a break from cinema/acting and into sports business by investing in a cricket team in Indian premier league.

3. </ref> Subhash K Jha of Times of India magazine called the film Goofy Zany and Outrageously Fun (Following a five-year sabbatical, Zinta starred opposite Sunny Deol as an aggressive Varanasi-based wife in Neeraj Pathak's action comedy Bhaiaji Superhit (2018). Subhash K Jha of Times of India magazine called the film Goofy Zany and Outrageously Fun)

4. ===Selected filmography===

• Krrish (2006)
• Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (2006)
• Jaan-E-Mann (2006)
• Jhoom Barabar Jhoom (2007)
• Om Shanti Om (2007)
• The Last Lear (2008)
• Heroes (2008 film) (2008)
• Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2008)
• Heaven on Earth (2008 film) (2008)
• Main Aurr Mrs Khanna (2009)
• Ishkq in Paris (2013)
• Happy Ending (film) (2014)
• Kaadhal Vennila (2016)
• Ivan Oru Thunichalkaran (2017)
• Bhaiaji Superhit (2018)

}}

As I have been contacted by User:KevinThomas71293 on my talk-page, I find it appropriate to move the request here. I have no knowledge of the subject. Lectonar (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Change Infobox Image And Caption

The Infobox has an outdated image of Priety Zinta.

As per her request she wants the following change:

Old Image | image = Preity Zinta by Ash Gupta.jpg

To

| image = Priety_Zinta_2019.jpg

Old Caption | caption = Zinta in 2018

To

| caption = Preity Zinta in 2019

Main image

Apologies, I thought Shahid had been reverted. I do think the older image is more suitable though.† Encyclopædius 14:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Goodenough

User:Shshshsh Yesterday I removed information about Goodenough's profession because this page is not about him[1]. It was restored by someone else and the info about his earlier connection with Zinta was added by someone else. But you deleted the information about how he connected with Zinta. If you are dedicated to removing 'irrelevant' info, then this blatant distraction about his profession needs to be removed first. 122.170.61.84 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not blatant distraction - his occupation is very much relevant - we're presenting her husband and his basic background. Him having an opinion about Zinta's earlier controversy is not. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It is distraction because he is not notable thus any details about him unrelated to the main subject violate WP:DUE. Your reasoning about calling the coverage he got by reliable sources for being a witness in a report filed by Zinta sounds nothing more than WP:JDL. 122.170.61.84 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

First, consensus must be reached before information that has been here for years is removed and similarly, when contentious information is added, so I thank you for reverting yourself and for starting this discussion. No, it's not a case of JDL at all, but a matter of WP:DUE. It is relevant who her husband is and what his occupation is, that's very basic. By constrast, it is not relevant where they met and that he was a witness somewhere as it adds no value (the first reaction it evokes is "so?") - their history together is more suitable for magazines. Although maybe it's a matter of wording and we could incorporate it somehow without making it sound out of place. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And what do you suggest? The IP is certainly correct that the person in the question has been significantly covered "by reliable sources for being a witness in a report" and this is precisely why I included the info. While your reaction would be "so?", my reaction would be "oh he was already well known to Preity Zinta before the marriage". In shorter words, I say this information is more important than his profession. AnM2002 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any doubt she knew him before the marriage? I can give you many other things he was significantly covered for which do not merit a mention here. I see someone's removed the fact he was her "longtime boyfriend" and that could first settle your question. As for him being a witness, well, if they were together at the time then it's merely obvious, unless it was where and how they first met, which would be meaningful and I believe it's not the case. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)