Talk:Twinkle Khanna

Proposed merge with Mrs Funnybones

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.

---

As quoted "The book highlights anecdotes and the experiences of the author regarding her family, surroundings and the way she handles them." Plus the book is no great piece of literature as such with any award wins or so. And if it's about her and her family, better merged in her biography article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This book meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:BKCRIT#1 "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Hence this book can have a separate page on WP.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Can, but not should. It can be merged as well for above stated reasons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: by your logic autobiographies can't have a page on Wikipedia because the writer's themselves are subject of pages on WP. Well, this book meets the notability guidelines for books and WP:NBOOK doesn't say anything regarding the content of the book.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Autobiographies by default shouldn't have their own page unless they themselves pass WP:GNG and are not borderline passing of NBOOK. Frankly speaking, this book has no literary value, would not be winning any notable literary award and has no significance outside the context of Twinkle Khanna. So why fork out and make a separate article? A condensed para can sit in this article itself. And hey... the article is gloated with trivia just to pass the 1500 characters limit of DYK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Had DYK criteria been my target, I would have added a lot of info regarding the plot but instead I added info about reception and publication. Merge discussions don't help much. This book meets GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Its not compulsory for you to discuss the merger. You may leave, your point is noted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The book has been ranked #3 by HT-Nielsen. See here. Your statement that "

this book has no literary value" is inappropriate. Merge discussions are initiated when the notability of the article is questionable but this isn't the case here.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That claim failed verification. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Offline sources and WP:SOURCEACCESS. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tags from both articles as the books is notable enough to have its own article.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't do that ever again. Ever heard of WP:INVOLVED? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a general advice for admins. Uncontroversial merger discussions don't require an admin to do the maintenance work. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Merger_discussion. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Only if you ever read it you would see "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." Its written for guys like you who won't have common sense to understand this in the first place. You created the article in dispute, you are the one opposing merger and you thought you are the right person to close it and remove tags???!!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• The article is notable enough and there's no need of merging then what good would putting the tags do to the article?--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets not teach you why a tag should be present on articles where the discussion is still not closed by non-involved editors. That would be a stupid thing to do.
Btw, NBOOK says "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book." Mergers are always possible. Plus the article doesnt even have 10 encyclopedic sentences in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Dharmadhyaksha and Skr15081997, would you be opposed to an RFC on this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2016 (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.

About removing good article tag

I think the article is not a good article because it is may be not neutral. So I think the good article tag should be removed. Ominictionary (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twinkle Khanna. 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://archive.is/20150309092612/http://archive.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/inifd-launches-academy-of-interiors.html to http://archive.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/inifd-launches-academy-of-interiors.html

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) 02:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Year of birth change

It has been found that the actress' year of birth is being continuously tampered with. While most sources state the birth year as 1974, some users are stating it as 1973 without proof. Henceforth, as per WP:DOB, it is required to state the source if there is any change to the same.|M15s09| 05:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Her year of birth is 1973 Hope this helps Niddhi.Singh1 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Twinkle Khanna's year of birth is 1973, she herself has mentioned she'll be celebrating her 50th birthday this year which is in 2023, so if you calculate, her year of birth is 1973. Twinkle Khanna talks about ageing ahead of 50th birthday Hope this helps Love.potion1021 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Issues with intro

I've tagged this page with {{POV lead}}, because I think the intro has some issues with promotional tone. It devotes a lot of space to the sales figures of her books, and (seemingly not very noteworthy) awards that she's won, e.g. the "Crossword Book Award", "Outlook Award [...] for the most inspiring woman of the year", "Hello! India magazine's Visionary woman of the year", and "the Vogue Opinion Maker Of the Year". This contributes to a tone that reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. There are also some WP:PEACOCK issues, e.g. Khanna was invited to be a part of an eminent panel. As User:Ominictionary says above, I think this is incompatible with "Good article" status, and this article should probably be reassessed if this can't be cleaned up promptly. Colin M (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Colin M Needed your advice to know what changes you propose in the introduction to help resolve the neutrality issue? The sales figures and awards which you find not very noteworthy have already been removed. what else can be amended to make it neutral? ShilpaLakhani1 (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShilpaLakhani1: here are some remaining issues I see:

• She was invited to speak at the prestigious Oxford Union, and She was also invited to be a part of an eminent panel at the United Nations are examples of WP:PEACOCK
• It puts an undue emphasis on the sales figures of her books. And generally seems to give undue emphasis on her current/recent projects, with barely any mention of her acting career (which represents a large proportion of the body).
• Keep in mind that the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the content below. Generally information should not appear in the intro which isn't also in the body. There is a lot of information that violates this rule of thumb right now. A lot of the specifics mentioned in the intro seem to be chosen to make the subject appear in a flattering light.
• Some of the language like she ventured into interior designing and She joined hands with Save the Children is a little flowery and sounds like a press release.

Colin M (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin M I have incorporated the changes as suggested by you, added information about her acting career and removed information which makes it appear like a press release. Have moved points about Oxford Union etc. out of the introduction and in the off screen section. I cannot remove them as these are points with citation and on doing so then I've been getting reprimanded for indulging in disruptive editing. I hope the changes are now as per the rules, please review and let me know if the issue is resolved and we can remove the neutrality point. ShilpaLakhani1 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• @ShilpaLakhani1: This is definitely an improvement. I think there's still a bit of a promotional/peacock tone to the description of Pad Man and still a bit of undue emphasis on her book sales figures. But if you want to remove the neutrality tag at this point, I won't personally object. That said, the WP:PEACOCK wording on stuff like "invited to speak at the prestigious Oxford Union" or "invited to be part of an eminent panel" are still problems even if the text is moved from the intro to the body. Colin M (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin M Good to have resolved this in an amicable way and best wishes always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShilpaLakhani1 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Twinkle Khanna/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I think the GA criterion this article has the biggest issue with is WP:NPOV. I'll repeat what I wrote on the talk page when I tagged the article with {{POV lead}}:

I think the intro has some issues with promotional tone. It devotes a lot of space to the sales figures of her books, and (seemingly not very noteworthy) awards that she's won, e.g. the "Crossword Book Award", "Outlook Award [...] for the most inspiring woman of the year", "Hello! India magazine's Visionary woman of the year", and "the Vogue Opinion Maker Of the Year". This contributes to a tone that reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. There are also some WP:PEACOCK issues, e.g. Khanna was invited to be a part of an eminent panel.

WP:PEACOCK also bears on criterion 1b, since one of the MoS guidelines it requires adherence to is MOS:WORDS.

Though it's worst in the intro, I think there's also some promotional tone leaking into parts of the body (e.g. Penguin Random House have announced that Twinkle Khanna's book Mrs Funnybones hit the Nielsen bestseller list at number 2 in its first week of sales. Launched in Mumbai on 18 August, the book has already reached number 1 on the bestseller chart of Crossword's Kemps Corner store and has been receiving praise from readers and press.). Colin M (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: Since it's been a couple weeks and there's been no response to this review, nor substantial changes to the article, I'm going to go ahead with delisting this article for now. Colin M (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Would request your help in resolving the neutrality issue on this page. The requested changes on the sales figure and awards have been removed. What other necessary changes need to be made for it to qualify as a good article? Niddhi.Singh1 (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk) The above mentioned Awards and sales figures are no longer part of the introduction. Need your help to know what further changes do you propose to help remove the 'neutrality' template and make it a good article? ShilpaLakhani1 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Status as best-selling female writer of 2015/2018

The intro currently claims that she was the best-selling female author in India in 2015 and 2018. The source for 2015 is a blog post repeating a claim made in a tweet by her husband. The source for 2018 is a profile/interview with her. I don't think these sources are strong enough. Can we find a reliable and independent source for best-selling authors in India in 2015 and 2018? I tried doing some searching, and didn't have much luck. It's not a particularly reliable source, but it's interesting that this Quora answer about the top-selling books in India in 2018 (which claims to use combined data from Flipkart and Amazon) doesn't include Khanna's book, but does include multiple other books by female authors (such as Savi Sharma and Rupi Kaur). That's enough to make me even more dubious about the factuality of the lead's claim. Colin M (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Necessary citations have been added to support the claims mentioned in the introduction --202.134.171.143 (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@ShilpaLakhani1:, I appreciate you finding different sources and adding them in your recent revision, but I think they have the same issue as the original sources. The first one (livemint) is from an interview/profile of the subject (like the earlier hindustan times source). The peepingmoon source cites Khanna's twitter, which in turn is based on a tweet from her publisher which makes the claim that Khanna is the best-selling female author in 2018 according to Nielsen BookScan. The problem is that her publisher is obviously not an independent, disinterested source. If we could find support from the claim directly from Nielsen BookScan (and I've tried, without success), that would definitely be an appropriate independent, reliable source. Colin M (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me with your email address because as such Nielsen data can not be published or shared except with publishers. I can help you with emails from Twinkle Khanna’s publishers to help support the aforementioned claims. Better still I urge you to write to Nielsen directly to get access to this data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.192.248 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Data that is not published cannot be used as sources in Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 05:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are some published articles in reputed publications mentioning her best-seller status and achievements. Hope this helps

https://scroll.in/article/823160/how-twinkle-khanna-is-stirring-up-indias-publishing-world-and-selling-lots-of-books

https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2018/12/30/lst10-year-books-non%20fiction.html

https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/sunday-et-speaking-volumes-women-writers-who-topped-the-charts-with-best-sellers/articleshow/55263925.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShilpaLakhani1 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of these support the specific claims that she was the best-selling female writer of 2015/2018 in India. The first one says that 'Funnybones' was number one on the non-fiction list at the time of writing. The other two just vaguely describe her as a best-selling author. Colin M (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A recent change to the lead which has been claimed to resolve the issue has in fact aggravated it: the lead now contains even more promotional language, and sources such as the scroll.in source mentioned above and a Facebook page(!) were added. There is some content in the revision that should be saved so I hesitate to revert it entirely, but in any case the issues with the lede have not been resolved. --bonadea contributions talk 14:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Book statistics in Lead section

Priyak90 (talk · contribs), I see that you have removed text regarding Khanna's acting career from the lead section – calling it "irrelevant and outdated information". Another thing, you have added the sales statistics for her books in the lead section again. Are these stats really important to be mentioned in the lead article? Does a book selling 1,00,000 copies really some exceptional thing that it should be placed in the lead section by removing details of her acting career, film production and interior designing work? One thing to keep in mind regarding these stats is that they have been announced by the publishers themselves and not by some established authority in this field. For now, I'm reverting your edit as these figures have already been covered in the appropriate section. I hope you have no objection to it. --Skr15081997 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Skr15081997 (talk · contribs), I've gone through the changes you've made again and I agree about the sales statistics but the fact that she was the highest selling female author not once but twice was said by Nielson BookScanwhich is the country's most authoritative sales chart, including the sales data of Amazon and Flipkart and other major book chain stores and hence it is more relevant to her career than an acting career that she left twenty years ago. Hence I've edited the information accordingly and added the necessary citations which are sourced from well-known online portals. I hope you will have no objection to it. --Priyak90 (talk Priyak90 (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Priyak90, Khanna appeared as the female lead in more than a dozen feature films. Her acting career is important enough to be mentioned in the lead section, even if she left it twenty years ago. She also received significant media attention for her work as an interior designer which too deserves a mention in the lead. I have also added that she was reported to be the highest-selling female author in India for the years 2015 and 2018. I think the lead is more balanced now with information on her various professions. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Skr15081997 Hi again, I feel her present career as an author is also important enough to be in the lead as well so lets make it a longer lead accommodating acting career, producer as well as designer and author, that way we both will be happy with the results. Hope that works for you, have made the changes accordingly. Priyak90 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Priyak90

Priyak90, I have made some changes to the lead section, beginning it with her acting career which is followed by her work in interior designing, film production and writing in chronological order. Your edits had increased the lead size to around 1/4th of the readable prose size in the rest of the article, so I had to trim it. I believe that the name of her three books with their year of publication and her being reported as the highest selling female author of India in 2015 and 2018 sufficiently covers her writing career in the lead section. Remaining information is provided in detail in the appropriate section. --Skr15081997 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Skr15081997 I have reverted it back following the chronology mentioned in the beginning of the lead. Also it makes no sense adding more of her films and not details on her books. There's a random Telugu movie and guest appearance in Tees Maar Khan which is not required in her lead at all. Even if its her films, she was better known for her other films than these and at present she's known for her work as an author hence I'm adding details on that back.Priyak90 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Priyak90

Sid95Q Hi Sid, I have reverted the changes to the lead section as this more updated with information about her present career as an author. Other information about her interior designing and acting career are present under relevant sections on the page. Hope this is fine with you. Priyak90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Twinkle Khanna Filmography" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twinkle Khanna Filmography. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 2#Twinkle Khanna Filmography until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)