Talk:Priyanka Chopra

No Contribution to Indian Cinema?

Vidya Balan: "She is known for portraying strong female protagonists and has been acknowledged in the media for pioneering a change in the concept of a Hindi film heroine."

Rani Mukerji : "Her film roles have been cited as a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in Bollywood."

Preity Zinta: "She subsequently played a variety of character types; her film roles along with her screen persona contributed to a change in the concept of a Hindi film heroine."

Kangana Ranaut: "Alongside actress Vidya Balan, Ranaut has been credited for spearheading a movement that breaks stereotypes of a Hindi film heroine by playing the protagonist in films (most notably Queen) not starring a well-known male star"

Kareena Kapoor: "Noted for playing a variety of characters in a range of film genres—from contemporary romantic comedies to crime dramas"

Priyanka Chopra :---------------

So, Every heroine except Chopra in some way has contributed to India cinema but, Chopra is a poor substitute of Vidya Balan as Krimuk said. So, What should I assume?—Prashant 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Chopra is one of Bollywood's highest-paid actresses,[213] and considered by the media one of the most popular Bollywood celebrities in India.[3] After playing strong, independent characters in Aitraaz (2004), Fashion (2008), Kaminey (2009), What's Your Raashee? (2009), 7 Khoon Maaf (2011) and Barfi! (2012), she gained recognition for her versatility in portraying a range of unconventional roles, leading CNN-IBN to describe her "as one of the most powerful actresses in the current lot and someone who doesn't shy away from experimenting with roles within the realms of popular cinema".[214] The Times of India called her a "game changer" and added that she "made the age-old demarcation between a hero and heroine redundant and one can easily describe her as a Shero".[215] Analysing Chopra's career highlights, Bollywood Hungama noted: "Despite a career that has seen a constant flip-flop .... [the] performer in her has seen a constant growth with every passing year."[45] In 2012, film critic Subhash K. Jha labelled her "the best actress in the post-Sridevi generation" and listed her character in Barfi! as being "one of the finest inwardly ravaged characters in Bollywood."[216] Chopra has often featured on Rediff.com's annual listing of "Bollywood's Best Actresses".[217] She was ranked second in 2006 and 2008,[218][219] and number one in 2009;[220] she was in its list of "Top 10 Actresses of 2000–2010".[221]"

That's not enough?! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

These above listed actresses have more praise than Chopra's in their "In The Media". Plus, In the lead, which Chopra has none.—Prashant 12:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And in the lead, "Chopra has become one of Bollywood's highest-paid actresses and one of the most popular celebrities in India." +"She was later noted for portraying a range of unconventional characters". The fluff in Chopra's article is more than all the above articles combined. If anything, the article is need of some extensive trimming. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Highest paid, Most Popular is also in their articles too. Blofeld has added them. So, pls dont go to that as popularity and money cannot be compared to Contribution to cinema. If popularity was a parameter, Katrina Kaif would have been the highest contribuotr to Indian cinema.—Prashant 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Chopra has won major awards for only one film, Fashion. All the other actress, including Mukerji, Balan, Kapoor have been awarded with major awards for multiple films, and have all been credited for changing the game for actresses. Barring one Fashion, Chopra's work has not been recognised as much as the other actresses. So Kaif, Deepika Padukone and Chopra fall under the similar bracket. No such claim exists in either Kaif or Padukone's article, and shouldn't exist for Chopra either. Still, there is a mention of "range of unconventional characters" in the lead, which is understandable given the risks she takes in her career. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I support Prashant in the context that he is trying to model PC like other Bollywood actress FA's. And an answer like WP:OTHERCRAP seems invalid here. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It is already modelled after other FAs, and doesn't need additional fluffy words like "shero" in the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OMG! Kapoor has not even won a single NFA and Rani (though deserved) have not received too. Vidya has one like Chopra and Ranaut. But, Zinta's? Come on you were caught in your text. And, who are you to decide this as you dont write sources? Wikipedia uses major sources from media outlets and Chopra is very well praised for her contribution. If Screen, Apsara awards dont have any value Why you have listed in Balan's page showing her many wins?—Prashant 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said they have no value? I never said that. And stop comparing other articles to this one. This doesn't need additional fulff. There is enough praise for Chopra that will make even Meryl Streep blush. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont think so. No one can make Meryl blush. She is just only one in the world. I said this as you said Chopra has not been recognised for her roles other than Fashion. Winning awards for a role does not always ensure that you were recognised. Jessica Chastain did not won an Oscar nomination for A Most Violent Year that does not mean she was not recognised like her role in Zero Dark Thirty—Prashant 12:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Chastain's article doesn't use made-up fluff like "shero" either. Her talent speaks for itself. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Because that is not a Bollywood article. You need to model Chopra's article like her Bollywood contemprories. By the way, you changed your view so easily. Why?—Prashant 12:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It already is modeled after her contemporaries. There is no extra fluff needed. Also, there is no view to change. I have said the same thing from the very beginning of this discussion. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

But, I dont see any similarties in the lead and the way other actress have been praised for their contribution, Chopra should be given the same treatment. I agree with Kailash as what he said was right.—Prashant 12:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The fluff in her article is sufficient. What you see or don't see is irrelevant. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So, Jessica Chastain has this in her lead "Chastain's performances in Zero Dark Thirty and in the 2013 horror-fantasy film Mama led film critic Richard Roeper to describe her as "one of the finest actors of her generation". Wanna say something more?—Prashant 13:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to say, since according to your statement, we should not model after Chastain "Because that is not a Bollywood article. You need to model Chopra's article like her Bollywood contemprories". Why are your changing that statement now? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep! Nice as It was a deliberative attempt to know if you are thinking in a neutral way for Chopra, which you are not as you dont want to see her being called versatile (which is definitely going back after I put many sourses together, come on you know that), a Shero or something like change in concept for Bollywood heroine, which is obvious by the text Unconventional character.—Prashant 13:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Garner unanimous consensus and then you can add. Till then, stop arguing with me. I'm not going to sit and worship Madam Chopra like you do, so my point of view will always be neutral. Also, I will revert poorly written edits because this is an FA, and you need to maintain a decent standard of writing. Blindly putting together random words is not considered good writing. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Unanimous consensus by whom? I am one of the main contributor of the article, following Wikipedia policies and blah blah blah. But, you dont seek any consensus in your articles before adding fluff why? Because I dont interfare in anyone's work. If I started interfaring in your work and pointing out the partiality in your work, you will be in a big trouble. So, pls lets be pratical and not play favoratism.—Prashant 13:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN the article. This work is in the public domain and anyone can edit it. So garner consensus, or your edits will be reverted. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia contributors agree to release their intellectual property under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. This is not the same as agreeing to release our contributions into the public domain. The main difference between PD and these licenses used here is that they continue to entitle us to have our contributions attributed to us. Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. But, other people often complain this about you (see the above section of WP:OWN). I appreciate your writing as you always correct my mistakes (joking & making fun of me offcourse). But, you always revert my edits showing that you Own the article and I dont have any right to edit it. —Prashant 13:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Next time, I won't even bother to correct your mistakes. No one else makes the required corrections anyway, so the article can be demoted then. Will that be better? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's why I appreciate you but, as I said you cannot own it. No matter it stays an FA or not.—Prashant 13:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't own it, and neither do you. That's why I started the discussion, for input from other editors like Dr. Blofeld. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Its not about inputs from others because you know that I dont get along with most of writers. So you are trying to prove me wrong by Hook or Crook. I wont stop till I prove my word because I know its about being neutral and equality in Bollywood Articles.—Prashant 13:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course you will. So go garner consensus, and stop being a child. Also, with that attitude you not getting along with people is the least surprising thing in the world. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Versatile described

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Added FYI

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-priyanka-chopra-s-5-most-powerful-roles-2016099 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.219.135 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that. Versatility is Chopra's another name. Few people here may get hurt afterall.—Prashant 16:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Here we go!

• From being a versatile and successful Bollywood actress
• The versatile actress
• She is one of the most versatile actresses
• Versatility
• Bollywood versatile actress Priyanka Chopra
• no one else in the industry must have been as versatile as her
• One of Bollywood's most talented and versatile actresses
• The versatile actress
• she proved her mettle as a versatile and hard-working actress

Gosh!! I am feeling tired writing this. Please do me a favour, google Priyanka Chopra versatile and you will get 1000 more sources. Is there a punishment for an user who removes uncontroversial edit? As the user definitely knew that Chopra has been called versatile. I want to ask Is there a rule for this kind of favoratism players?.—Prashant 16:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The word was removed during the FAC review, and should stay that way. There are a million views on google for "priyanka chopra cleavage show" and "hot body show" as well. Doesn't mean we need to add that. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stay in your limit and dont try to be oversmart. Now, you have been caught for your shameful act. So, you are making excuse? The word was not even objected during FLC and why it would have been objected? At that time we did not had much sources thats why you had removed much before the nomination. Later, Blofeld re-wrote the article. So pls dont be so judgemental. Wikipedia works on sources and not your imaginations. If it matters to you remove female hero and blah blah blah from above list of actresses then, we will talk.—Prashant 06:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources also say Priyanka is very sexy. So should that be in the lead as well? Sexy is also her "second name". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Go on and add the word sex symbol as she is a sex symbol.—Prashant 07:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, she is a versatile sex symbol apparently. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah! And, not the Female hero of Bollywood. Lokk at her she is crying for not being called. LOL.—Prashant 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why won't Bollyjeff or Blofeld participate? They are the main contributors to this article's FAC I believe. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld has already participated in the discussion above, and has discouraged the use of fluff like "shero". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Kailash29792, I am also a main contributor of the article. So thank you for taking away my contributions.—Prashant 08:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, I dont care about the word Shero. Its fine to not add that since there are not too mant sources. I am fine with it. But, Like the articles of above actresses it should be added that she had played different roles from the traditional portrayal of women in Bollywood as unconventional means the same. I want equality with the articles as neutrality is very important on wikipedia.—Prashant 07:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the rage you displayed and the amount of personal attacks you made, it did seem like you did care quite a bit about the word "shero". Now that you were defeated on the issue by other editors, you are targeting some other methods to get back at me. That's too bad as I am not going to let fluff overtake this article. If you say "unconventional" means the same thing, then what do you want to change? The fact that she played unconventional characters is already mentioned. There is no coherence in your arguments and you change your stand one too frequently, and most of your messages make no sense to anyone! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you dont want to discuss, just go away as you dont Own the article. Your problem is very serious. First you oppose to something and then say why you have moved on? Hypocrisy much! I dont care what you think. There is a difference between between saying she plays uncoventional and saying "acknowledged by the media for playing". I just can say one think if that is a fluff to you. Then all your edited articles have fluff. Sorry to say, but I have to open a discussion to delist each of your articles from FA. I hope I open that soon. And, this is not an attack.—Prashant 07:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have sources to prove that the articles I contributed to aren't upto the mark, then please open the FAR right now. Why wait? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have the sources. Dont worry I definitely will. A teaser was given to the "No contribution section" above. Just wait for the right time.—Prashant 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the big deal with adding the word versatile in there somewhere. The ibnlive and dnaindia sources make it pretty clear. And she did play 12 roles in one film. I do hate to see you guys spend so much time arguing about it though. Further, I don't think the word 'Shero' is appropriate for the lead. BollyJeff | talk 13:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If someone makes a decent case for it, I don't have a problem with adding anything from her versatility to her breast size. But if someone keeps making personal attacks towards me, and accuses me of being a hypocrite, I'm not going to let them continue with it. I have contributed on articles of 4 different actresses who have nothing in common with each other, and are in the same league as Priyanka Chopra. I don't know what the fuck I'll achieve by trying to bring down Chopra. So if someone doesn't act like a goddam fan boy, I can try and help improve the article. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you know about certain words such as Equality? For wikipedia, it's called neutrality! I dont want to discuss furtger with you.—Prashant 14:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Which other contemporary leading actress have you contributed to? You don't get to lecture me on neutrality. Your world revolves around Priyanka Chopra, and you think everyone else is a piece of shit. I have contributed to Vidya and Deepika, who are polls apart. So are Rani and Kangana. I know what neutrality is. There is nothing special or different about Chopra that I need to bring her down. I don't hate her or any other actress, unlike you. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on Huma Qureshi and Parineeti Chopra. Listen, I dont have. any problem if you like her or not. But, you are turning from your own words. It's posted above. When I wrote Versatility cannot be removed. You said provide sources and when I provide so many sources. Suddenly, it became unwanted? So, tell me what should I assume?—Prashant 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are more sources for "sex symbol". Why don't you add that? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember how much you wanted to add her being a sex symbol in her lead. If you think it's right go on and add in the lead. I dont have a problem if she is also considered a mere symbol.—Prashant 14:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a million sources of her affairs with Akshay Kumar and Shah Rukh Khan too. I see no mention of that either. All you want to do is add praise, praise, praise. Nothing else. We all should just sit and do bhajans around Madam Chopra. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh really? But, I dont see the same in your articles. Deepika has been dating 100 mens, Rani had an affair with Govinda, Abhisekh and Aamir, Vidya had affairs with Shahid, John. So, Wy didnt you added these stuffs to your articlea because you want to do bhajan around your female heroes. I will provide 100 sources for their relationships too. I am trying to come to a result but you dont want to. Its better we dont cross each others paths.—Prashant 15:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Deepika's affair with Ranbir and Sidarth. Mentioned. Kangana's affair with Aditya Pancholi. Mentioned. Rani's affair with Aditya Chopra. Mentioned. Vidya's affair with Shahid. Mentioned. All of it mentioned in their articles. Nothing about Chopra's affairs with Akshay or Shah Rukh. Why? Hypocrite!!! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, dont get the discussion to another level. It will be better if you can opena FAR of this article and I should open FAR of yours. And, then it will be okay. Bye Bye!!—Prashant 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the moment I catch your lies you change the topic. Hypocrite!! I have no intention to open FAR on the article because I know how hard Bollyjeff and Blofeld have worked on this article, despite all your attempts of ruining it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And, the moment I catch your lies then? Since Bollyjeff agrees with me adding Versatility. The discussion is over. If you wanna call me hypocrite, then call me. I dont have any problem. OMG! I tried to ruin the article. Wow!—Prashant 15:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ethnicity is Punjabi?

How can her ethnicity be listed as Punjabi when Chopra herself has said that her maternal grandmother is Malayali? I'm not sure what her paternal grandfather is, but he's likely to be Malayali as well:

"I am a Malayali," says Priyanka with a straight face on learning about our recent trip to God’s Own Country. Even as one rubbishes it off as a prank, she says, straight-faced "My naani is a Malayali from Kottayam, so I have roots there."

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/interview-what-is-priyanka-chopra-s-kottayam-connection-1740013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyanP (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Somebody proclaiming themselves to be a part of a certain ethnicity doesn't actually need not necessarily make them a part of that group. Further, the source states that only her maternal grandmother to be a Malayali, not mother. I see no point in bringing in the Malayalam ethnicity here. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean Malayali* ethnicity; Malayalam is the language they speak. In any case, going by your logic, I'm not sure why there's a point in bringing up her Punjabi ethnicity in the article. If that's relevant so is her maternal grandmother being a Malayali. AyanP (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Ayan

Pardon me for confusing you, but I'm very much aware of the difference between "Malayalam" and Malayali". No where in the article (in words) I'm able to find a mention of her Punjabi ethnicity. The "Malayali ethnicity" matters only in her maternal grandmother's article, not here. I suggest you please read WP:CATEGRS before jumping into conclusions. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth would there be an article about her grandmother? And yes, there is a line about her Punjabi father ("Her father was a Punjabi") while there is no mention of her maternal ancestry. If the latter doesn't matter, why is the former mentioned in the article? AyanP (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP

Unless you can also find her maternal grandfather's ethnicity there's no strong reason to include "Malayali".Filpro (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reviews

Why are we removing reviews of Chopra's performance in an article about Chopra? [1], [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Can We Get a New Main Photo?

I don't think the current one is flattering at all and it's not exactly recent anymore. AyanP (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP

There are ample photos in commons, please list here any suggestion that you might have, or anything in proper pixels in recent one. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone already changed it to a recent photo, but I think this one is even less flattering. Considering this page is probably going to get a lot more people visiting this page because of Quantico, I think she deserves a photo that does her justice. Let me look for a better one.

FYI, have you noticed that BollywoodHungama.com retouches candid pictures to add more lighting and make people look paler? I wish we could use photos from another source. How about pictures taken by fans? AyanP (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)AyanP