Talk:Priyanka Chopra

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 6 as Talk:Priyanka Chopra/Archive 5 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

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)

Personal life

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 26 August 2018

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

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

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

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. Pakistan asked for Chopra being sacked by her UN job but UN supported Chopra's right to talk for herself.

References

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. 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". 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. 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.

References

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

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

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

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)