Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Let the debate begin

Here's a list with stuff I'm not happy with. Please comment on it before we engage into a revert-fight all over again. If we cannot reach consensus, I'll go for Third Oppinion and the help of admins and other users.

• Preity Zinta is really popular, has been working very much and there's lots to tell about here. I like her and I really want to make her article look good, and maybe someday, to get it featured. However:

• WP is not a gossip magazine and I will take the featured articles of other actors and actresses as rolemodels when it comes to the way the filmography should look like. There are policies and guidelines and I'm afraid this is not open for debate. That's not something I decided, but the consensus.

• Not all awards are necessary to be listed. I understand that Filmfare, Stardust and the likes are necessary, but everything else is just too much. If you have a look at Diane Keaton's awards: she has Oscars, Golden Globes and BAFTAs, so I think we should crop them and write them the way they are displayed on Keaton's page. (The same thing applies to Mukherjee's article. The awards are way over the top.)

• Her early life needs to be referenced (with non-gossip-sites).

• The IMDb-profile of Zinta is written by a reader of IMDb, not by a represantative of Zinta or a journalist. Therefore it cannot be used as a reliable source. If you wish to comment on Zinta's movie Dil Hai Tumhaara, please find a reliable, independent source, preferably from a newspaper, BBC, or Rediff.

• The 2003-part is out-of-date ("most expensive movie ever made"), POV ("special and influential" -> "successful" is much more neutral), the comment on Yashraj Films belongs into Yashraj's article, and needs to be sourced, and "All these achievements promoted her as one of the biggest stars in the industry." is *very* POV. It's up to the reader to decide. She is popular, she is successful, but she is not *big*. (What does she weigh? 52 kg?) "KANK" is an ensemble film and technically not her film alone - the phrasing is misleading.

• "In 2000 Zinta was already popular." <- Already established.

• I think the entire "Popularity" paragraph can be deleted. The information on Marie Claire is somehow interesting, depending how important the magazine is in India - but on the other hand, she was also on the covers of most tabloids in Germany, so really not notable.

• "Zinta has worked with the biggest stars in the Indian industry, including four times with Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Amitabh Bachchan and Rani Mukerji." People can count. Why is that information interesting? The articles of the movies should include that.

• "She was also offered a role in the expensive foreign film Marigold, but turned it down." She turned down several roles. Belongs into the Marigold-article.

• "Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants, along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit." We are an encyclopadia -> if you open the Britannica, you will hardly find something like this.

• "They appear to be very much in love, and there is a lot of speculation whether the two will marry soon." Both are just speculation. She is seeing him. Enough information.

• "Her good friends in the industry include Yash Chopra,[58] Rekha,[59] Aishwarya Rai,[60] Karan Johar, Abhishek Bachchan, Shahrukh Khan and Gauri Khan. Her very close friends are Hrithik Roshan and his wife Suzanne Khan Roshan.[61] Her best friend out of the film industry, is Shagun Sharma, who has been her best friends since early childhood." That's tabloid stuff. And who is Shagun Sharma?

• (Just FYI: the same stuff applies to Rani Mukherjee's article to, IMHO.)

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic post, Plumcouch! Covered pretty much all the problems with the article. Now we need the same sort of diagnosis on Rani Mukherjee and both these articles will be cured of the disease of mediocrity. xC | ☎ 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I have not edited for a while I can see where the problem is with Zinta's, Mukherjee's and now Kareena Kapoor's article. Personally I agree with User:Plumcouch on all her points. All of a sudden awards have a bigger relevance in someone's life and that much emphasis on them is not necessary. So, yes I agree with the points highlighted. Zinta's, Mukherjee's and Kapoor's article needs a major clean-up. -- Pa7 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Preity Zinta, I know that you all want to change completely her page, but please pay attention to some important requests. I dare to ask all of you that, because I have worked very hard on this page. If you look the history page of Preity you`ll see that I dedicated myself for hours to expand the page.

• Firstly, please be fair in your edits, and before editing be sure that things you`re removing or changing in Preity`s page won`t remain in Rani`s page, like the awards for example, cause it will be very unfair.

• Please don`t remove the good friends. What`s wrong with that? these facts are quite good as they constitute part of her personal life + they are sourced in a very precise way.

• I know the popularity title is a little bit strange cause I did it very briefly and didn`t have time to think on good title. I just wanted to integrate the trivia facts as briefly as possible into the main article, so I think your idea for a new title is very nice. However, its facts in it are correct, referenced and important.

• I tried to make a good, organized look for the awards section. Please don`t revert my ideas (I mean the wins and nominations in incorporated sections). It`s very important to me.

• I don`t know why do you thing the career section is "woefully inadequate". I worked hard on it. To be honest, it was quite offensive comment to hear since I worked very hard on it. That`s truth, the so much grossing notes are a bit unnecessary but the popularity, YRF fact, the Veer Zaara grossing in a row fact, the DHT and KK appreciation etc. are very important. If you take a look on Rani`s career page, you`ll see that her page is full of admiration way more than Preity`s, although I like Rani too (as you could see before).

• I don`t know if the TV appearances are bad or good, but we`re talking about notable appearances. KWK, KBC and Indian Idol for example have their own pages here on WP.

• And it will give me a lot of happiness if you expand the controversies section, which has only one little paragraph for every case.

I hope you won`t get angry after reading my requests and won`t consider it as insolence from my side. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 09:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

== Dil Hai Tumhara ==--Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that if she hadn't had appreciation for DHT in 2002 she wouldn't have been signed for her next high profile films? One more thing is that people who read this career section may wonder how can it be possible that after 2001 successes we jump into the 2003 year without any mention of 2002. We can't ignore 2002. this film was definitely an important milestone in her career. If it had been bad performance by her she wouldn't have made KHNH, KMG and Armaan. I know it makes me like an obsessed fan of Preity but it's not like this. I just want to create a logical and chronological order.

More than that, some Hollywood actors may have only 10 films in career of 5 years, and they have huge unbelievable career sections, including every film in the section. --Shshshsh 09:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're rant about some hollywood actors having huge unbelievable career sections is point-less. Having an adequately-written well-referenced is an asset. Preity Zinta has 4 paragraphs plus one sentence for her entire career section, which is inadequate considering the number of films she has done. Theres not much commentary about the films either.

Don't you think that if she hadn't had appreciation for DHT in 2002 she wouldn't have been signed for her next high profile films? - Whats your point? Its written in the article -

In 2002, she was the leading actress in Dil Hai Tumhara. This film marked an important milestone in her career. Although the film did not do well at the box office, her role as an adopted daughter was much appreciated and her performance was well acclaimed. Consequently, she became sought-after by some of the biggest filmmakers in the following years.[21][22]

• This film marked an important milestone in her career. - says who?
• Although the film did not do well at the box office - refs?
• her role as an adopted daughter was much appreciated and her performance was well acclaimed. - its written here that she recieved appreciation for the film. Isn't that what you want to say?

You write - One more thing is that people who read this career section may wonder how can it be possible that after 2001 successes we jump into the 2003 year without any mention of 2002. We can't ignore 2002. Let me use the words of Shez 15 - are you blind?

We haven't ignored 2002, its there in the article. If you want to expand it, please discuss how you'll expand it and provide references for the same.

Regards,xC | ☎ 12:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, KHNH, KMG, Armaan and even The Hero (which is definitely the most expensive movie as per every reliable and unreliable net source) were some of the biggest projects of the year 2003 by the biggest directors (Karan Johar, Rakesh Roshan etc.). It`s important to note, when such a big and successful director like Karan Johar makes film, he in advance has to be sure that the leading actor or actress is good enough for his promising project. Let's assume that she was brilliant in 1998-2001 and gave really BAD performance in 2002. But she didn`t. If she had done so, no one director would have taken the risk of signing her as the leading lady. Don`t you agree with me in this case? If you don`t like the language or the writing style, you`re free to change it, but where the obstinacy to remove the whole little paragraph comes from?

In 2002, she was the leading actress in Dil Hai Tumhara. This film marked an important milestone in her career. Although the film did not do well at the box office, her role as an adopted daughter was much appreciated and her performance was well acclaimed. Consequently, she became sought-after by some of the biggest filmmakers in the following years.[21][22]

• This film marked an important milestone in her career. - Says who? As I wrote you above and as in the refs I`ve put there
• Although the film did not do well at the box office - Refs? I`ll bring you refs.
• her role as an adopted daughter was much appreciated and her performance was well acclaimed. - its written here that she recieved appreciation for the film. Isn't that what you want to say? Yes. It`s exactly what I want to say.

My statement for Hollywood actors was right so please don`t tell me the opposite. Hollywood actors make 2 years per year, whilst Bollywood are running from one set to another. And please don`t be insolent telling me what you`ve told whether it was Shez`s words or yours. Thanks --Shshshsh 15:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• where the obstinacy to remove the whole little paragraph comes from - I didn't remove it. I don't know who removed it. Why don't you check the page history and post a note here asking that particular editor for clarification?
• I`ll bring you refs. - Excellent, the problem of verifiability would be solved then.
• Yes. It`s exactly what I want to say. - Very good. The article wanted to say what you said. I repeated that the article is saying what you wanted to say. And now you repeat that what I said in my post is exactly what you wanted to say. Fantastic. We agree on this point then.
• My statement for Hollywood actors was right so please don`t tell me the opposite. - Lets analyse this, shall we? Pointwise-
  • You said that some Hollywood actors may have only 10 films in career of 5 years, and they have huge unbelievable career sections, including every film in the section.
  • Which hollywood actors are you talking about? Sidey extras, struggling starlets, established actors, which? Because if you intend to say that as a generalization, its all out wrong, since some actors do more movies than others. Some do less. Some do only commercial, others only arty films. Everyone has their own way of going about it.
  • huge - Who are you to decide how much is too much? You are not. The actor decides. If an actor has done more work, they will have more. If the actor's work is subject to criticism, it will be mentioned. If the actor was praised, it will be mentioned. Why will it be mentioned? Because these are Hollywood pages, not Bollywood film-bios laden with fangush and revert wars. People actually work to improve the Hollywood pages, inserting material in a neutral, well-referenced sensible manner.
  • unbelievable - why is it unbelievable?
  • including every film in the section - this seems to be a little misguided. Whatever films the actor has done, they will be mentioned in the career section will they not?
  • Hollywood actors make 2 years per year, whilst Bollywood are running from one set to another. - what is the point that you are trying to make?
  • I would like to re-iterate that this entire discussion about the Hollywood bios is pointless. Lets discuss how to improve the article whose talk page we are on.

Listen, KHNH, KMG, Armaan and even The Hero (which is definitely the most expensive movie as per every reliable and unreliable net source) were some of the biggest projects of the year 2003 by the biggest directors (Karan Johar, Rakesh Roshan etc.). It`s important to note, when such a big and successful director like Karan Johar makes film, he in advance has to be sure that the leading actor or actress is good enough for his promising project. Let's assume that she was brilliant in 1998-2001 and gave really BAD performance in 2002. But she didn`t. If she had done so, no one director would have taken the risk of signing her as the leading lady. Don`t you agree with me in this case?

->I understand the words you have typed, although their purpose isn't apparent to me. What the director would do or not do is speculation on your part. If I agree with you, so what? I don't agree with you, so what? What exactly are you trying to add to the article by asking these questions? What are you proposing we do about the paragraph? Theoretical questions apart, what are your suggestions for the content?

From whatever I understand from your posts, you wish to add back some paragraph that some editor removed and you would like to expand the career section. Excellent. Doing both of these would be progress, as long as the content added helps the article. If that is what you'd like to do, I'm sure no-one here would object.

Once you put in the content, we could have a look at formatting, references et cetera.

Best regards, xC | ☎ 17:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, I didn`t come here to discuss on Hollywood stars. It was just a note since your intent is to change Preity`s page according to some Hollywood actors` articles. So great, I integrated Preity`s trivia into a new Popularity section as in Tom Cruise`s page, and some users want to remove it now. How many films has Angelina Jolie to her credit? 37 (when some of them have not release yet) Rani Mukherjee has the same number of films. Take a look at Rani`s career section and at Anjelina`s. The difference is clear.

Preity was involved in so much controversies during her years in the indian industry. Look at Tom Cruise`s controversies. They`re so organized and expanded, while Preity has only three worthless paragraphs.

I just meant that Undoubtly the articles of Bollywood stars are deprived compared to Hollywood`s stars, So please I don`t wanna argue on Hollywood actors anymore.

About Dil Hai Tumhara, I didn`t say that you have removed it. I said that Plumcouch intended to remove it, as you can see it above in her change suggestions. So I wrote why I think this movie should be kept in the career section. No-one has removed it yet. I remind the directors just to make you and other users understand that this movie should be mentioned in the career section. In the case of appreciation, I have already put references. You started this discussion without any concept why do I post this message at all. Please have a look on the DHT paragraph and tell me what do you think. Should it be kept or not? Best Regards --Shshshsh 18:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As suggested above, lets drop the topic about the Hollywood stars.

Right from my very first post, I have supported the inclusion of that paragraph (about her films in 2002) in the article. As per your post earlier about expanding it, I fully agree. As long as the new content added in is well-referenced, there shouldn't be a problem.

your intent is to change Preity`s page according to some Hollywood actors` articles - no actually. We are all here to make the Bollywood bios as good, and better, than the Hollywood bios.

Fully agree with you, the controversies section needs expansion.

Can be pointed out that nowhere has anyone suggested we remove any of the films she did in 2002. Everyone here fully agrees with you that the career section and details about the films require expansion, and so should be kept and expanded.

I would also like to thank you for discussing your concerns on this talk page. I'm not saying this particularly for you, but in general, earlier there were several fragmented discussions spanning several editors' talk pages, which was unproductive. I'm glad that all editors working on this page are now discussing changes on the talk pages, so we can all discuss and decide how best to improve the articles.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I`m very happy you`re supporting me in my request to keep the 2002 paragraph, and I`m not rejecting the idea of using the Hollywood articles as an inspiration for this or every other page improvement, since they`re so expanded and invested. Thank you for keeping the pleasant talking manner, cause for me it is the most important thing when I discuss on something. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 19:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, about "Hero: Lovestory of a Spy" - there are several sources (I can provide refs if you want) that say the budget was 50 or 55 crore. Others say the budget of Krrish was 40, 45 or 50 crore. Meaning, we cannot be sure what "Hero"'s budget was. Also, does anyone know aboz Devdas' budget?

Furthermore, please comment to the "Let the debate begin" post. If not, we start right away:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumcouch (talk • contribs)

Popularity

I added all the polls from popularity section to the awards page where it is more appropriate to avoid all the clutter. But I don't know what to do with the other unimportant trivial phrases left:

Her trademark has been her dimple, and She was known for her strong and different roles. Roles like the CBI officer in Sangharsh, the teenage single mother in Kya Kehna were very different from the typical roles made by actresses in that point of time.

After Aishwarya Rai, she is also the second highest paid in India, along with Rani Mukherjee.

On January 9, 2007, she was mentioned on segment "We The Mediator" of popular T.V. show The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert mentioned her as an important name in Bollywood, while in character, mocked the media coverage of the alleged feud between Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan and stated, "If Preity Zinta is at the party, you better show up!"

She was also on the cover of the first issue of Marie Claire magazine to be sold in India.

She was also offered a role in the expensive foreign film Marigold, but turned it down.

Moreover, Zinta is very popular in the Middle East countries, like Afganistan. Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants, along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit. She is also famous in Europe in countries such as Russia and Holland

For now, it has been removed from the page. Any suggestions? - Shez 15

Someone put this back into the page, I haven't bothered to go through the history hunting for the editor's name. Most of it is POV, and needs a clean-up, so I've removed it from the page (again). Here are the things which could be put back -

• All of that about her strong and different roles is unencyclopedic and shouldn't be in the article.
• After Aishwarya Rai, she is also the second highest paid in India, along with Rani Mukherjee. - doesn't this contradict whats said in the mukherjee article about her being the highest paid?
• The portion of "We The Mediator" could be in a section, In the media. In the same section we could also put in her dimple being her trademark.
• She was also on the cover of the first issue of Marie Claire magazine to be sold in India - not notable. Stars turn up on mag covers all the time.
• She was also offered a role in the expensive foreign film Marigold, but turned it down - this can be mentioned in career, with the year she rejected the role and her reasons for doing so (if we can find them).
• Moreover, Zinta is very popular in the Middle East countries, like Afganistan. Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants, along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit.[8] She is also famous in Europe in countries such as Russia and Holland[9] - laughable. Are the mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons notable? I'm sure dozens of girls have posters of Brad Pitt up in their rooms - should we include that in his article? Posters of stars are put up everywhere, we do not have to mention that. Remove.

Regards,xC | ☎ 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with you. Like plumcouch said, The mary clair magazine is very famous magazine so it should be kept. It`s not a simple and unimportant magazine. It`s a world-wide popular magazine and it will be kept.

She is popular in Afganistan. It`s a part of her popularity. I have the reference. Therefore, we leave that. The mirrors are not notable, but the fact is. Posters are evrywhere but please read the reference which is marking her huge success abroad.

You will never find reference where it is written "Mukherjee is the highest paid. In my reference BoxOfficeIndia.com which is a very reliable source by the way, you can see clearly she is the second highest paid, and I don`t care about the page of Mukherjee. We arenot going according to Mukherjee`s page, we`re going as per the references we have.

OK I relinquish in the case of strong roles. FOR NOW. Best Regards.

And please, you can`t remove my hard work like it was nothing. We have dicided to discuss b4 editing--Shshshsh 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, lets leave the content here on the talk page until we decide about it. Kindly do not put it back without further inputs from other editors on this talk page.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

mary clair magazine is very famous magazine - whatever you say. Frankly its just like the other glossies. If you feel so very strongly about keeping it, we'll keep it in the section In the media which I proposed above. That would take care of the things which do deserve to be mentioned and provide a place for further addition of mentions of her in the media.

How is it notable that she is popular in Afghanistan? Its very sweet of you to provide a reference, if you have a look you'll also see the part saying along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit. She is not the only one. She is not the first star to be popular there, nor will she be the last. It is mere fangush to put in a list of countries where she is popular. The mirrors are not notable, which posters are posted on them are not notable, beauty salons come a buck a dozen and the posters put up on them cost even less. It is not encyclopedic.

You are opposing removal of this mainly because you added it in and feel it isn't right to remove anything added in by you. Please have a look at WP:OWN. There is also a little note below the edit box stating If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

OK I relinquish in the case of strong roles. FOR NOW. - Thats very nice of you, would you like a medal for that? The strong roles portion did not have a reference, so it shouldn't be there anyway. Again, critical appreciation of her roles belongs in Career accompanying the film.

Regards,xC | ☎ 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear XC, firstly be polite cause I don`t appreciate this kind of talking manner. We are her to help, not to fight. I see your rewritings are just brilliant. So rewrite, repharse etc. but please don`t remove information which is very important and notable. Yes, she is shring the popularity in Kabul with other stars. Fine. What`s wrong? please read the reference and if the mirrors don`t please you so rewrite it, remove it etc but the fact remains being fact so Kabul remains here. I don`t care if the title of this section changes to In the media or in the press or in TV or whatever. The important is to keep the facts. Regards --Shshshsh 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The mirrors and the mirrors' posters are not very important and notable, which is why they were removed in the first place. I have nothing against her sharing popularity in Kabul, nothing wrong. My question is - why Kabul? Why not the other places? Why not add in every country in why anyone has every liked her film? You'll add Afghanistan, the next day some other editor will add in another country, soon we'll have a list in the article List of countries where Preity Zinta is popular. It is unencyclopedic to have such a list.

Mentioning popularity in a country also has other problems. Firstly, it is not universal popularity, ie. there will be people in that country who do not like her, or are not fans of her. So it would be misleading on our part to say that she is popular in the country as a whole.

Secondly, it would be insertion of praise in that paragraph. This would be nice on a fansite or a blog, or any such place where it is alright to have a strong point of view about an issue, an individual or a situation. However as an enecyclopedia article, we must strive to present a well-balanced neutral point of view.

I also note you haven't offered your views on having a section In the media. If you support it, then facts such as her trademark dimple, etc could go there. We would have to be careful, of course, of only having relevant and/or notable things in that section there, because we are dealing with a film star here. Stars appear in the media all the time, so such a section would be beneficial albeit difficult to maintain.

I hope you see the reasons why I oppose putting in the mirrors and Afghanistan portion. Its nothing against you, I'm simply looking at what would be best for the article.

Looking forward to your views on this,

Best regards,xC | ☎ 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

XC please understand. My problem is not the morrors. Ramove it from my side. The importance is the popularity, that`s why this section exists. I agree with in the media. Why not? She is popular for all intents and purposes, and this Kabul fact constitutes an expression for this claim. I believe that if this fact had been unreferenced, you would have requested reference. Now we have fact + reference. I`m not intending to get a list of countries, but if we know that she is popular there, so why not write it? Don`t you agree? Regards --Shshshsh 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

<Too many colons - line break>
I have just discovered that the reference you have entered this only mentions Zinta in passing, and her name is only mentioned twice.

Once at the top - WHETHER it's a muddy, broken road in the historic town of Bamiyan, about 250 km from Kabul, or a bustling street in Kabul, at shops, stores, and particularly hair dressing saloons, big portraits of Shahrukh Khan, Ajay Devgan, Sunny Deol, Aishwarya Rai, Preity Zinta, Madhuri Dixit and scores of others greet you.

Second at the bottom -

Its director Nilab Sadat is a beautiful young woman, who had to flee to Peshawar in Pakistan during the Taliban era to continue her education. She was not the first woman to not only return home, but also take up a job after the Taliban's ouster by the allied forces at the end of 2001.

It is with a question mark in her eyes that she discusses the future of Afghanistan and the status of its women. But her eyes light up at the mention of Indian cinema.

"I simply adore Shahrukh Khan and loved his film Devdas. And your Preity Zinta is so beautiful. My dream is to come to India and meet Shahrukh Khan. And Indian music is great... I love listening to Lata Mangeshkar's songs. If I can ever meet her, I'll think I'm in paradise!"

The first provides evidence that Bollywood is popular in Kabul, and that posters of film stars are put up all over. Not posters of only Zinta. Nor is she mentioned specifically, she is mentioned among the other names - big portraits of Shahrukh Khan, Ajay Devgan, Sunny Deol, Aishwarya Rai, Preity Zinta, Madhuri Dixit and scores of others greet you.

The line which you had put into the article states - Her portraits became covers of mirrors - but this is not only her portraits, accoring to the reference. There are other stars as well. Therefore it shouldn't be put in, according to this.

The second tells us the opinion of a lady named Nilab Sadat. This is her personal view and not representative of the country as a whole. Neither is she a celebrity, that this would count as praise from some notable individual.

The page tells us that Bollywood is popular in Kabul and its outskirts, that is all. Zinta is mentioned in passing alongwith a bag-full of other stars. Therefore, based on this reference, we should not put in these lines.

The above, alongwith the reasons I put forward earlier, is the reason I oppose inclusion of these lines in the article.

Regards,xC | ☎ 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you and I repeat, write it like you find it good. Just don`t remove information about the fact that she is popular there. You can remove all, but she is popular there. Kajol for example is not mentioned. Preity mentioned twice which is definitely sufficient to write that she is popular there, even if she is mentioned with another stars. And note that User Plumcouch who is now absent, agrees with this. You can see the same in the Madhuri Dixit page too. Please rewrit it. How much you could. I`ve never added wrong information to WP. --Shshshsh 21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I`m going to sleep. BTW, why do you think that her friends are unneeded. Please tell me. Is a part of her personal life. I don`t want to edit it now. Please put it back. I don`t get your mind. Just removing and removing. --Shshshsh 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Shshshsh-

You also said - Strongly disagree with you. Like plumcouch said, The mary clair magazine is very famous magazine so it should be kept. It`s not a simple and unimportant magazine. It`s a world-wide popular magazine and it will be kept.

Actually, what Plumcouch wrote at the top of the page was -

• "In 2000 Zinta was already popular." <- Already established.I think the entire "Popularity" paragraph can be deleted. The information on Marie Claire is somehow interesting, depending how important the magazine is in India - but on the other hand, she was also on the covers of most tabloids in Germany, so really not notable.
• "Zinta has worked with the biggest stars in the Indian industry, including four times with Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Amitabh Bachchan and Rani Mukerji." People can count. Why is that information interesting? The articles of the movies should include that.
• "She was also offered a role in the expensive foreign film Marigold, but turned it down." She turned down several roles. Belongs into the Marigold-article.
• "Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants, along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit." We are an encyclopadia -> if you open the Britannica, you will hardly find something like this.

What this means is, Plumcouch had suggested a long time ago (19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC) as per timestamp) that the popularity section be removed. Shez also shifted content from popularity section to the seperate page to remove clutter, and then shifted the remaining portion to the talk page for discussion.

Both Plumcouch and me have given reasons above why the sentence about Kabul should not be here. That means removing it. You keep reverting it, hence it cannot be removed.

The marigold portion should be in the marigold main article, as suggested by Plumcouch. (I now oppose its inclusion in the article, as it adds no value)

Popularity as a section should not exist. You say you agree with that, yet you keep reverting. I don't understand that.

I will not edit the article until this is sorted out, I do not wish to be part of a revert war.

Regards,xC | ☎ 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You said -Now I`m going to sleep. BTW, why do you think that her friends are unneeded. Please tell me. Is a part of her personal life. I don`t want to edit it now. Please put it back. I don`t get your mind. Just removing and removing

I am forced to remove the unencyclopedic content from this article because no-one else does. You are intent on putting it all back in.

We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a fan site. We have no means of confirming whether they are still her friends or not. WP is not Orkut, or Facebook, or any other social networking site that we trace out friendships. Hence who she is friends with is non-notable, so it was removed.

Also, you said - Kajol for example is not mentioned. Preity mentioned twice which is definitely sufficient to write that she is popular there, even if she is mentioned with another stars. And note that User Plumcouch who is now absent, agrees with this.

It is mentioned scores of other stars on that page. Zinta's name is only mentioned once as a worthy count, the other was within a quote from a random lady. Zinta has been accorded the same status as the other stars on that page, no more no less. All that page proves is that Bollywood is notable. It says nothing specifically about Zinta.

As for Plumcouch - Plumcouch is not absent, simply busy. And what Plumcouch said was actually different from what you believe was said, as I have copy-pasted and pointed out above.

Regards,xC | ☎ 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Popularity section is just redundant. There's no point since we already know she's popular from the intro. Putting it on the page makes it fangush and POV when we put countries because not everyone can like a certain person. And even so, the article on Afghanistan is POV of the writer. It's nor a TIMES Magazine like on Ash's page. Her success ratio and salary facts can be moved to career section "Success". I don't see why Kya Kehna has anything to do with popularity since there are quite a few movies which have made her more popular than Kya Kehna, nor was Kya Kehna the biggest hit of all times or in that case, a hit at all. Then, how can you say popular? It can easily be put in Breakthrough and it is. No need to mention it twice. And Marie Claire is not the most popular magazine and even so, having a cover on a magazine is unnotable. She's not a model where having a cover on a magazine is her source of income. In any case, celebrities appear on cover every single week and month. Ash has her cover on more than 1000 magazine. It would be stupid to choose one and put it on wikipedia. Unencyclopedic. It's more like making wikipedia a fansite. Thus, Popularity section should not exist. - shez_15

Thank you, Shez 15, for adding your views to this. I see that you support what Plumcouch suggested so long ago - the Popularity section as a whole must go. Most of its content cannot be in the article, but whatever can be kept, will definitely be integrated into the content in other sections.

I am also a little concerned about having salary facts on the page. None of these figures come from the horses mouth, and the sources are only border-line reliable. Also, there is no reason to have her salary on the page because a)it adds no value to the article b)It means we would have to find salaries of all actors c)A similar issue at had come up on SRK's article, it was decided there as well by the previous editors not to put in salary - the entire discussion is available on the article talk page for all to see.

There also appear to be several contradictions on the page, often within the same paragraph. The refs applied, such as in the Kabul case, do not match what is stated and/or implied in the paragraph. I'll make a list of these on this talk page later.

Regards,xC | ☎ 04:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK

OK xC Kabul will be removed. And please remove it from Madhuri`s page. Marie Claire a is very important magazine. So like Plumcouch said, if this one is important, we leave that. the offer of Marigold is not a simple film, it`s an internatioonal foreign film. There are a lot of actresses that have trivia like this in their page. You have already accepted B4 Marie claire keeping it in your new section. and you have also said that we can use Marigold in the career section. the success ratio remains. we will also remove Kya Kehna and roles above.--Shshshsh 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm busy right now, I'll have a look at Madhuri's page whenever I'm free. Feel free to remove Marie Claire portion yourself, if you have the time. I change my view on whether it should be there in the article or not, and now believe that it should not. If we do include it, then we would also have to research the whole list of magazine covers she has appeard on in the past. Whether the mag is old or new, filmstars appear on mag-covers all the time, hence it is non-notable in this context. Indeed, if we had to list all the magazines that our Bollywood stars were featured in, we would take a very long time!

I support inclusion of the offer for Marigold in her career section. It is a strong indicator of her success and fame as an actress, and the fact that she has been noticed by the international community.

Again, I only propose removal of those lines for the roles for two reasons - 1)unreferenced 2)they would be more relevant in the career section. Please note, I am not saying outright removal, this entire time I have been saying that we remove it from Popularity section and put it in Career section, provided we can find refs for it.

I'm sorry, I din't get what you mean by 'success ratio'. If you'd clarify, we could discuss that here and surely reach an amicable solution.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly thanks. Secondly, success ratio is the report of the B.O.I cite on how much success have actresses of this generation, from Karisma Kapoor to Priyanka Chopra. Preity`s ratio stands on 65%. In other words, she has the highest success ratio. Box office India is the most reliable source on Box Office reports of the indian cinema. We use it everywhere here on WP. please click on the reference given to you in the popularity section. You will see the charts. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 11:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: As for Marie Claire, Plumcouch said the following: "The information on Marie Claire is somehow interesting, depending how important the magazine is in India". The magazine is very popular in India. If she it had been something like "she was on the cover of Marie Claire." I would have removed that for my own, but we have here that she was on the cover of the FIRST magazine to be sold in India. That`s a honour. That`s a fantastic expression to her popularity. Don`t you think so?! You have also said: " If you feel so very strongly about keeping it, we'll keep it in the section In the media which I proposed above" so Marie Claire really should be kept. --Shshshsh 11:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're only quoting part of what Plumcouch said. The entire statement was - I think the entire "Popularity" paragraph can be deleted. The information on Marie Claire is somehow interesting, depending how important the magazine is in India - but on the other hand, she was also on the covers of most tabloids in Germany, so really not notable.

Lets repeat that, really not notable.

Magazines feature stars all the time, so her being on the cover of it is really not notable, whether it was the first issue or not. Therefore I believe it shouldn't be there in the article.

The BOI poll can be kept alongwith the polls, I never suggested they be removed, I simply suggested they be shifted to somewhere more appropriate.

After Aishwarya Rai, she is also the second highest paid in India, along with Rani Mukherjee. [60][61][62] -

I question the truth of this. As per this, Zinta and Mukherjee got the same amount and are the second highest paid. However in the Mukherjee page, there is a clear statement, supported by this, saying she got 4 crores for Baabul, which is more than any other. Which is correct?

Again, bringing in salary is a touchy subject. The BOI page lists it as approx, while the Baabul ref from IMDB doesn't state how it got that figure. So we don't know which is true.

A similar discussion on whether salaries should be put in or not took place on Shah Rukh Khan, have a look at the talk page. It was decided not to put in salary there.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, The magazine is very popular in India. If it had been something like "she was on the cover of Marie Claire." I would have remove that alone. but we have here that she was on the cover of the FIRST magazine to be sold in India. That`s a honour cause the magazine wasn`t been sold in India before and she was the first. That`s a fantastic expression of her popularity. Don`t you agree that this refers to media or popularity or whatever? There are no very much of facts like this so don`t worry about others to add more. --Shshshsh 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you intend to prove the magazine is very popular in India? And what makes this magazine so special that Zinta's appearance on the cover is notable whereas her appearances on the covers of other magazines are not notable?

Again, I would like to request you to have a look at the salary discussion on SRK's talk page, I note you have offered no suggestions relating to that.

Regards,xC | ☎ 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

what makes this magazine so special that Zinta's appearance on the cover is notable whereas her appearances on the covers of other magazines are not notable?

Maybe there is nothing that makes this magazine more notable than others, but the magazine is an international magazine 1 2 3 which was sold at the first time in India. The matter is that she was the first. Why not Kareena? Why not Bipasha? Here is the honour. This is the example that emphasizes her as a popular actress. Not the magazine, the fact that when it was sold here for the FIRST TIME, she was the first. Apart from it, The appearance of the magazine in India made a lot of waves since it`s a very famous magazine, so why noy mention Preity? I`ve seen Preity`s cover. It is really prestigious.

I don`t know why we are doing so big deal from this magazine. Yesterday you insisted to remove Kabul, but you supported to leave Marie. Today, when I agree for Kabul, you`re intending to remove the little fact of Marie. Tomorrow you`ll say that we have to remove the success ratio too, stating that you`re free of changing your opinion. So nice. Am I wrong? --Shshshsh 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very nice, whatever that means.

I supported shifting of Kabul into another section since I believed that the reference was correct. Then I found that you had completely mis-represented what was in the reference, and so I changed my stated opinion. You completely twisted what was there in the given reference to make it seem like it only spoke of Zinta. That entire bit is about Bollywood (and not just Zinta) being popular in Kabul, and should be in the Bollywood page, if at all. So my vote for the Kabul portion is - Remove.

Alongwith that change, I also take back support for having the Marie Claire portion in the article. Filmstars appear on magazine covers all the time, so it is non-notable. SRK has appeared on God alone knows how many magazine covers, if we tried listing mag covers for each and every actor, their article pages would be full of nothing but lists. Hence I vote for this - Remove.

She was also offered a role in the expensive foreign film Marigold, but turned it down.[7] - This is the only thing in the entire popularity section which adds anything useful to the article. It can be added to the relevant career section. My vote - Keep, and shift to career section.

Her trademark has been her dimple,[1] - earlier I supported keeping this. After looking at the other Featured Articles, now I question why this is kept on this page. Her dimple has not recieved any notable media attention, unlike Jolie's lips. Her dimple has not set off any rage or trend in Bollywood. So it shouldn't be there in the article. My vote - remove.

Everything else in that section Popularity has already been identified as unneccessary. So the remainder should be removed. In summary, out of the entire Popularity section, only the bit about her being offered the foreign film adds any value to the article. The rest should be removed, as per reasons already discussed above, and the earlier posts.

I replied here in the middle as there were already replies below, and I did not want it to seem that I was replying to a later post.

Regards,xC | ☎ 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who is right or wrong in terms of the magazine's mention on wikipedia. But the fact remains, there are other popular magazines too. Vogue, Vanity Fair. In any case, Priyanka was the first celebrity chosen to be on the cover of Maxim's first release in India. Now, that magazine is also a very popular men's magazine. Then, should we put that mention on her page too? Again, I saw endorsements on Zinta's page. I thought those aren't allowed to be put on wikipedia as I had earlier put them for Rani and Ash but they were removed. Plus, those endorsements are unnotable too. By the way, in India, the four biggest brand ambassadors for India are Amitabh, SRK, Ash and Sachin. It would be impossible to list endorsements for all of them. And Rani does more endorsements than Preity. It would be hard to realize which ones are important. And if we put all, that's just trivial since some of the brands are not that popular. I question the endorsements? What's the say now? Best regards. -shez_15

I said and I repeat, the magazine popularity is just a part. The real matter is that she was the first. Why not Kareena? Why not Bipasha? Here is the honour. This is the example that emphasizes her as a popular actress. Not the magazine, the fact that when it was sold here for the FIRST TIME, she was the first. Apart from it, The appearance of the magazine in India made a lot of waves since it`s a very famous magazine, so why noy mention Preity? I`ve seen Preity`s cover. It is really prestigious. So I repeat, if it had been some another magazine which more popular I would have removed it, but no, we`re talking about the esteem of being the first (depite the fact that this one is very popular magazine). Here is the point. have you got it? --Shshshsh 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is still based on the belief that being on the cover of the first issue of a magazine is somehow more notable than being on the cover of any issue. Why is it so? I'm just trying to understand the logic here. While you say its a matter of prestige, actually there are far more factors involved. For instance, SRK has gone on record saying he turned down several magazine photo-ops as they requested him to have pictures taken with other actresses, and he didn't want to upset his relationship with his wife. So whichever actor did the cover later was actually second-choice, therefore it isn't as much as matter of prestige as it is of making do with what you have.

Before you start screaming that Zinta was the first choice or say anything even remotely suggesting that I have something against Zinta, I would like to clarify I have nothing against her. The example I gave of SRK's mag appearances was just one example. There are several such reasons why one star is not on the cover while another may be.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of independent magazines all over the world which put up pictures of filmstars on the cover. And every magazine has to start somewhere, with someone on its first issue. Some magazines already have substantial circulation in parts of the world before they enter regions where they have no subscribers. So for those regions, they would have an apparent first issue as well, as in this case. By no means is that notable, since someone had to be on the cover anyway. If not Zinta, it would have been someone else.

Appearing on the cover of a magazine is something the star may be proud of. It may be something the star's fans look forward to. But the fact remains that dozens of stars have appeared in dozens of magazines before, and dozens will appear later. Simply appearing on the cover of a magazine, therefore, is non-notable. By extension, appearing on the first cover isn't worthy of inclusion either.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 06:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don`t know why do you have a aproblem with that. I can`t get your mind. Listen, the magazine, is a combination of two things.

Firstly, the magazine is very popular. It has its fansite and it was a big issue when it came to India. I gave sources for it.

Secondly, like I said various times, she was the first on the cover of this prestigious magazine.

The reader can read it and think: "wow, she is really popular." Not every indian actor achieved to be the first on an international magazine. This is the honour, the popularity. I`m tired to tell you.

I hope today this will be closed.

One more important thing is that the popularity section is important. I have put it here as in Tom Cruise`s page. Why do you want to remove it? One more thing is that the entire content of this section in Cruise`s page contains magazines and ranks. That`s why we could return the polls section of Zinta`s new page to this section. And that`s why I said that Bollywood actors are deprived compared to Hollywood. I don`t want to talk about the Marie Claire magazine anymore. It remains there.

BTW I haven`t added this fact, and Please comment on Mukherjee`s page rather than busying on nonsenses. Your opinion is important there. --Shshshsh 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, for the love of God, we are not here busying on nonsenses.

Secondly, it doesn't matter whether or not you get anyone's mind so long as the article is being improved.

Now on Cruise's page its very clearly written - On 16 June 2006, Forbes magazine published 'The Celebrity 100', a list of the most powerful celebrities, which Cruise topped. The list was generated using a combination of income (between June 2005 and June 2006), web references by Google, press clips compiled by LexisNexis, television and radio mentions (by Factiva), and the number of times a celebrity appeared on the cover of 26 major consumer magazines.

The magazines themselves are not mentioned. The sentence states that Forbes made that list taking into account income, web refs, press clips, tv and radio mentions 'and mag covers. Your logic is a little off in saying that the entire section talks about magazines and ranks. Theres one line about magazines and the rest is about ranks, which I'll get to in a second.

Not every Indian actor achieved to be the first simply because there aren't those many international magazines that have been launched in recent times in India. The trend is growing, and so will the appearances made. Whats your point?

As for the polls (and ranking etc), I was going to suggest putting that into the Popularity section once its cleaned up, however your revert warring didn't give me a chance.

All this rubbish about popularity in Kabul, the Colbert report, and the POV-ridden statements about strong and different roles needs to go. Once all that is removed, then polls, critical acclaim, etc can be put in. For a paragraph to be expanded, first the nonsense has to be thrown out. xC | ☎ 10:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Report?! No way! this one doesn`t go. I accepted Kabul cause you gave me good reasons to remove that. Like I said yesterday:

Yesterday you insisted to remove Kabul, but you supported to leave Marie. Today, when I agree for Kabul, you`re intending to remove the little fact of Marie. Tomorrow you`ll say that we have to remove the success ratio too, stating that you`re free of changing your opinion. So nice and now you want to remove colbert too. NO. you wanted to shift it into your new section, so do it. Colbert won`t be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Popularity again

In 2000 Zinta was already popular.[57] Her trademark has been her dimple,[58] and She was known for different roles. Roles like the CBI officer in Sangharsh, the teenage single mother in Kya Kehna were very different from typical roles made by actresses in that point of time, and won her criticall acclaim. - goes to career section.

Today, According to BoxOfficeIndia.com, Preity has the biggest success as an actress among the other Bollywood actresses, having the highest success ratio of 65%. She has 7 major hits, in her nearly 30 films.[59]. After Aishwarya Rai, she is also the second highest paid in India, along with Rani Mukherjee. [60][61][62] - remains. we`ll add the polls too.

On January 9, 2007, she was mentioned on segment "We The Mediator" of popular T.V. show The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert mentioned her as an important name in Bollywood, while in character, mocked the media coverage of the alleged feud between Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan and stated, "If Preity Zinta is at the party, you better show up!"[63] She was also on the cover of the first issue of Marie Claire magazine to be sold in India.[64] - colbert stays here. the magazine here. Since this section is called Popularity, these facts make us understant how much popular she is.

Moreover, Zinta is very popular in the Middle East countries, like Afganistan. Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants, along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit.[65] She is also famous in Europe in countries such as Russia and Holland[66] - Remove.

Best Regards. --Shshshsh 10:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Roles go to career section if and only if we can find notable critics and/or reliable sources saying what is written. As of now, its you who are saying that, not external sources.
• BOI - remains. Polls will be added in from awards seperate page into this. Agree with you.
• Kabul popularity- remove. Agree with you.
• Colbert report - remove. There was an entire discussion on the talk page of Amitabh Bachchan where also this was added. It was decided there to remove. It is non-notable. Why should this quote from Colbert be added into the article? What value does it add to the page? If you could clarify that, then we could close this discussion about the Popularity section.

Regards,xC | ☎ 10:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don`t you think that being mentioned on an American popular (which is very popular) show, is notable? God, here is the popularity xC, among hundred of actors and actresses she was mentioned, and even they said what they said about her. That`s popularity. They didn`t mention Ayesha Takia or Amisha Patel. They mentioned Preity.

And don`t give me pages of another actors. This doesn`t help me at all. here we discuss our reasons and facts.

And I already don`t know if we can rely on your opinons, since you often change them. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 11:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn`t help me at all - Your dismissiveness is remarkable. The reason I'm directing you to other pages is that this Colbert report rubbish has already been put in on Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan's pages, and was removed. An entire discussion took place, which you would know if you read the archives. It was decided then to not put it in. Do you really find it that difficult to read up on past discussions?

That is the reason, that is the fact. Please go have a look at those pages, you'll see the entire discussion there.

Regards,xC | ☎ 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amitabh is Amitabh and their reasons to remove it don`t interest me. We`re talking about Preity Zinta now and the section is POPULARITY. Therefore it remains. Even if you change this section to IN THE MEDIA it`ll be here cause it is considered as media. You go as per other pages "If they removed it, so I`ll remove it too" I don`t care whether other pages use it or not. That`s popularity. What about the dimple? could we use it in the career or leave it here? (and don`t tell me it should be removed too cause this fact was here for 2 long years. Her dimple is her trademark. Everybody knows her as "the bubbly and dimpled" so please don`t open new war) --Shshshsh 11:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: formerly you said that: The portion of "We The Mediator" could be in a section, In the media. In the same section we could also put in her dimple being her trademark.

• Roles go to career section if and only if we can find notable critics and/or reliable sources saying what is written. As of now, its you who are saying that, not external sources. - that`s for you - 12[1].

(edit conflict)

I just went for a walk.

During my walk, I realised something. I realised that even if all the other editors on this page give you all the reasons and proof in the world to not put in those things, you're still going to fight for it since you seem to believe you are the sole protector of this page.

I think its wrong that the progress of a page be stalled due to just a few lines. So despite all the reasons I've given you above, and despite all logic going against it, lets keep in the portion about Marie Claire.

Again, in the interest of the page, lets keep the Colbert Report part. You obviously haven't read the earlier discussions, and explaining all of them to you seems to be useless. So lets keep it, with a slight change - the bit about Bachchan and Khan need not be there, and the quote should be put in correctly "If Preity Zinta is there, you better fucking show up" onetwothree. The videos clearly show what he actually said, although some editor apparently censored it.

Lastly, I remember very well what I said, thanks again for reminding me - lets keep the dimple part.

My suggested wording is - Zinta's trademark has been her dimple[1]...<BOI content>[2]...On January 9, 2007, Zinta was mentioned on The Colbert Report in a segment We the mediator. Colbert said,"If Preity Zinta is there, you better fucking show up".[3] Zinta was also on the cover of the first issue of Marie Claire magazine to be sold in India.[4]

The roles stuff should be in career, if at all, and the Kabul part still has to go. Polls can be put back from the seperate page into this section Popularity.

I hope you're happy now and this ends the problem. Best regards,xC | ☎ 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you've got refs for them now. Excellent, so now they can be put into Career section.xC | ☎ 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dear. Thank you very much!:-) --Shshshsh 12:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So here is the popularity section as accepted by me and xC:

In 2000 Zinta was already established.[57] Her trademark has been her dimple,[58]

In 2003, she was placed number 1 on the Rediff's Top Bollywood Female Stars.[40]. In the following years, she was placed at number 2 three years in a row (2004-2006).[41][42][43] Likewise, she was ranked number two on the Filmfare "Top Actresses" list (2003-2004) and number three later on (2005-2006). She was also on the Rediff list of 'Bollywood's Most Beautiful Actresses',[44] and Listed #41 by UK magazine Eastern Eye one of "Asia's Sexiest Women" (Sept/ 2006).[45]

Today, According to BoxOfficeIndia.com, Preity has the biggest success as an actress among the other Bollywood actresses, having the highest success ratio of 65%. She has 7 major hits, in her nearly 30 films.[59]. After Aishwarya Rai, she is also the second highest paid in India, along with Rani Mukherjee. [60][61][62]

On January 9, 2007, she was mentioned on segment "We The Mediator" of popular T.V show The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert mentioned her and stated "If Preity Zinta is at the there, you better fucking show up!"[63] She was also on the cover of the first issue of Marie Claire magazine to be sold in India.[64]

If you decide not to use payment in actors pages at all, so the second highest paid will be removed too. Thanks, xC. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 12:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The first bit about Zinta already being established in 2000 is unneccessary, as noted by Plumcouch earlier. It should be removed.

The BOI bit is good, although Shez has raised doubts about its authenticity (re your talk page). 7 major hits will change in the future, as I'm sure she will be part of several hit films. So its time dependent, and doesn't need to be there.

The salary bit should genuinely not be there, since they are all approximate figures. Again, there was a very long debate on this on Shah Rukh Khan. If you don't want to read it, the debate concluded with - no Bollywood bio will have the salary details about the actor. So it shouldn't be there.

Revised version-

Zinta has the most success among all the Bollywood actresses, having the highest success ratio of 65%.[59] Zinta's trademark has been her dimple.[58]

Zinta was ranked second on the Filmfare "Top Actresses" list in 2003-2004, and secured third position later on (2005-2006).

In 2003, Zinta placed first on the Rediff's Top Bollywood Female Stars.[40], and in the following years placed second three times consecutively (2004-2006).[41][42][43]

Zinta was also on the Rediff list of 'Bollywood's Most Beautiful Actresses',[44] and listed #41 by UK magazine Eastern Eye one of "Asia's Sexiest Women" (Sept/ 2006).[45]

On January 9, 2007, Zinta was mentioned on segment "We The Mediator" of popular T.V show The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert said,"If Preity Zinta is there, you better fucking show up!"[63] Zinta was also on the cover of the first issue of Marie Claire magazine to be sold in India.[64]

Thats about it. Do you agree with this? xC | ☎ 13:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if the polls are included in In the media section, then they should be removed from the seperate page List of Preity Zinta`s awards and nominations. They're ditto, no need for having the same content twice.xC | ☎ 13:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that`s great. Totally agree. You gave very neutral look. Just to note, the salary will be removed from Rani`s page too. Agree? Thanks, Best Regards. --Shshshsh 13:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Shshshsh, Mukherjee will also have details of salary removed. No-one is being unfair to Zinta, please calm down. xC | ☎ 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rajput or Sikh?

In the section early life, theres a line Born in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, she hails from a Rajput family of Rohru in Shimla District. Here anons keeping changing Rajput to Sikh and viceversa. Does anyone know for sure which should be included in the article? Also, do we have any refs for this?

Regards,xC | ☎ 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Xc, I think she is a Sikh but has never ever talked about her family's religion in public. Here's a website: [2] There are links to Preity Zinta, Preeti Zinta, Sikh and Actress. All concluding to her. There was another reference, [3] which said so but is not working now. It said: Her real name is Preetam Singh Zinta. She comes from a Sikh family. ... Durganand Zinta died when Preity was thirteen, in a car accident in which her ... Plus, on KBC, Rani did her act in Bengali whereas Preity did it in Punjabi. Sikhs speak Punjabi. Another thing that can be inferred is that her father was in the army, the fact is most Sikhs join the army. Again, her father's name is Durganand, a Sikh name. Finally, two good references which says it all: [4][5]. Another noticed thing: Amisha Patel is a Sikh. Her last name is Patel which is a Sikh family name. But there's no information about her family background being Sikh on wikipedia or anywhere else. I'm confused. I think Sikhs in the industry are not so many and maybe that's why people don't yell it aloud when they are Sikh because it might hurt their Hindu fan base. Kind of like a taboo in Bollywood. But I don't see any wrong? - shez_15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I have a friend named Patel whos Parsi, the surname alone can't convey origin. Not all Sikhs speak Punjabi. Most Sikhs do not join the army. Incorrect claims on ancestry should be removed.

I'll poke around on Google and get back to you. Regards,xC | ☎ 05:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god her name is not Preetam. Please understand, Preetam is a male name. Bobby Deol called her Preetam Singh because of her Tom boy image. That`s all and everybody knows it. She hasn`t changed her. You could never find some reliable ref telling that her name is Preetam. LOL. So funny. Her name was, it is now and it will always be Preity/Priety Zinta. Best Regards.--Shshshsh 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

S.P: Please note that these references are invalid because their contant is taken from... Wikipedia. Yes! If you look down the history of Preity`s page you`ll see the same cause very much of unreliable cutes were using WP as a source. --Shshshsh 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. This does not exist. This also gives the Preetam Singh plus Sikh ref.

In my searching, I found this page. Of these, except for a few, I can personally confirm that the names given there are correct, so the list is credible. However, its noted at the end of the page that some/most are from WP, so we cannot treat this as a reliable source.

Shshshsh, you cannot straight off judge a name based on what you feel it is or how it sounds. The conventions to keep in mind are - there are no formal conventions. I had a south Indian male class-mate in Calcutta named Kiran, and we ragged him non-stop about it. Gurpreetkaur is a female Sikh name, while Gurpreetsingh is a male name. Since kaur or singh generally ends up as a middle name, both individuals end up having the first name Gurpreet. However I know a girl named Harpreetsingh. She is a girl, so Preetamsingh can very well be a female name. There are several names among base Hindi and regional dialects that are androgynous, or shift gender depending on associatives. But we are not here to discuss etymology.

Yahoo Answers - this - brought up another hassle. See the last post, by Siya -

preetam singh zinta

actually, when its spelled pritam...isnt in considered a guy's name???/ just wondering'

So, does the spelling affect the name? No, it doesn't. The spelling is merely an english transliteration, so whether it is preetam or pritam, it doesn't matter.

Basically, if we can confirm either her Rajput or Sikh origin, then her real name being Preetam Singh Zinta becomes more believable.

At this point, I strongly believe her real name is Preetam/Pritam Singh Zinta. However, as we have no reliable sources to back that up, I strongly oppose putting it into the article. I also strongly oppose having the word Rajput or Sikh in the article without a reference. I'll be removing it - if as and when we find a ref, we can easily put it back.

Regards,xC | ☎ 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this one is a good reference: [6] It has all the real names for all Bollywood celebrities who had different names before they entered the industry. Again, for Sikhs, their names are long like Preetam, that is if she is a Sikh and then they have a pet name like Preity. So, we have to keep Preity Zinta but in the section where it says real name in the infobox, Preetam could be put and besides that, this reference. I can vouch for a lot of people's names who have been changed as they entered the industry and they're correct. So, of course, why would they change Preity's name for no reason? - shez_15

Until we know that her real name is Preetam for sure, we can't add it in. True, theres no reason why they would arbitarily change Zinta's name...xC | ☎ 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Revised "Popularity" section

To see the entire past discussion, please see Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive2. Thank you xC | ☎ 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As per the entire discussion between Shshshsh and me earlier, we've agreed to the following changes to the article once its unprotected. If anyone has concerns/objections/questions, please do raise them on this talk page. Here is the revised version-

• Popularity section will be renamed to In the media section.
• The text in the section has been thoroughly discussed, and as per consensus, its final version is-

Zinta has the most success among all the Bollywood actresses, having the highest success ratio of 65%. Zinta's trademark has been her dimple.

Zinta was ranked second on the Filmfare "Top Actresses" list in 2003-2004, and secured third position later on (2005-2006).[ref here]

In 2003, Zinta placed first on the Rediff's Top Bollywood Female Stars., and in the following years placed second three times consecutively (2004-2006).

Zinta was also on the Rediff list of 'Bollywood's Most Beautiful Actresses'</ref, and listed #41 by UK magazine Eastern Eye one of "Asia's Sexiest Women" (Sept/ 2006).

On January 9, 2007, Zinta was mentioned on segment "We The Mediator" of popular T.V show The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert said,"If Preity Zinta is there, you better fucking show up!" Zinta was also on the cover of the first issue of Marie Claire magazine to be sold in India.

• Although I have gone through the refs once, it would be appreciated if another editor could have a look and check if all the links are working. The source-code can be pasted from here directly into the article once the article is unprotected, as I have added the refs in here.
• Lastly, the section Polls on the page List of Preity Zinta`s awards and nominations can be safely removed as all the content in that section has been integrated into this section In the media in the main article.

All those who agree with this, please reply in this section saying the same so that there is no ambiguity once the page is unprotected.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify, I don't agree with all the text above. In fact, I agreed to it being put in as I didn't want the entire article to be held hostage due to a single section. I wonder whether it matters now, since the article is protected anyway. So we are supposed to discuss things here. As of now, since we've already discussed the rest of the things in this, we could take the suggested paragraph above and discuss it.

Firstly, the Colbert report portion is unneccessary. It was removed from Bachchan and Khan's pages as it is unneccessary. Bollywood stars are mentioned all over the world, theres no real reason to have it here. Next thing you know, Shshshsh will suggest that we add colbert to all the pages of the stars colbert mentioned on that segment. We'll have a dozen articles with a mention on the Colbert Report. How does that make sense?

Secondly, the marie claire magazine doesn't need to be there. Its just a magazine. Stars appear on magazines all the time, theres no real reason for that line to be there.

I note that Shshshsh and me are the only two people who've thrown ideas back and forth, and as such its only a discussion between us two. Shez 15 has commented in another section about this, I'd like to request Shez to add in whatever inputs are possible about this section here. I'm sure Shez could add value to this discussion.

Regards,xC | ☎ 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I archived the past discussions. They can be found on Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive2. The page was getting too long and took too long to load, and as per Archive conventions, old sections on talk pages over 32~34 kb should be archived to keep the main talk page neat. The entire discussion can still be found, in its original form, in Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive2. That archive has now gotten massive as well, so further archiving will be in archive#3. Best regards,xC | ☎ 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh god you`re so confused. I think we can`t rely on your opinions at all cause you change them frequently from one side to another. Like you said, that's only a few lines so don't make war for every little thing. I said and I repeat, the Colbert report was removed from SRK's page and Big B's page because they had their own motives to do it. Maybe they didn't want to remind this false feud between the two. But anyway it does not interest me and I'm not concerned by that cause Preity is Preity, She is not Amitabh and she is not SRK. This section deals with popularity whether it is named "Popularity" or would be "In The Media" because it is considered as popularity\Media to be mentioned in such a famous show. It is an expression to her popularity as an actress. There was a big issue after this show with Preity and it was spread everywhere (as the sites you gave earlier) so why WP can't use it. just because you think it's not matching?

As for the magazine, I already gave you all the necessary explanations for leaving it there, including references for its popularity etc. This magazine also appears here in WP and has its own page and its own fansite. Preity is the first Bollywood actress to appear on the cover of this prestigious magazine. That's why this remains there. I don`t know why it is so difficult to distinguish between this magazine and other magazines in the case of Preity`s appearances in them cause this cover is much more honor for her cause she was the first and by the way it is also considered as Media and of course popularity.

As for now, I don't know if I should believe in you at all cause you are very strange. I accepted to remove the Kabul fame but now I think I was wrong and I have my doubts and by the way I'm free to change my opinion. And if you insist on removing the page I won't hesitate and insist to keep the page like it was before. Everybody has his own opinions. I was never unfair with none of the pages. All the information that I have added to Preity`s, Rani`s or whoever`s page during my editing history was right and factual, exactly like this. You also turned to Shez cause you wanted him to come against this to make 2-1 to your favour, but don`t think I`m concerned by this too. I`m not a child and the fact that you join other users does not make me nothing. By the way Shez is a big fan of Rani. I don`t know why but he hates Preity for this reason and he was always proving this in his edits. Go to the history and check, or even ask Plumcouch. She knows that very good. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh god you`re so confused. - coming from you, that is quite entertaining.

I said and I repeat, the Colbert report was removed from SRK's page and Big B's page because they had their own motives to do it. - no, it was removed because it was unneccessary. But you wouldn't know, you don't read other pages. When I requested you to have a look at the discussions there, you refused to do so. So whatever you're saying here about it is all speculation on your part since you haven't read the real reasons why they were removed.

There was a big issue after this show with Preity - what 'issue after this show with preity' are you talking about?

because you think it's not matching? - not matching what? what is it supposed to match?

As for the magazine, I already gave you all the necessary explanations for leaving it there, including references for its popularity etc - you still haven't cleared out the doubts I raised in the earlier discussion. If you would like me to repeat the questions I raised earlier, feel free to ask me to do so.

This magazine also appears here in WP and has its own page and its own fansite - Correct. Firstly, this information about preity being on its first cover in its india issue should be that page and not this one. Secondly, one fansite ... yes, what about its one fansite?

As for now, I don't know if I should believe in you at all cause you are very strange. - that is a personal attack. Kindly do not repeat that. Comment about content, not editors.

I accepted to remove the Kabul fame but now I think I was wrong - you were wrong to put it in, in fact. Feel free to start a new discussion about it, its simple to show that you misrepresented what was actually in the Kabul ref, and why it was unencyclopedic in the first place.

and I have my doubts and by the way I'm free to change my opinion. - of course.

And if you insist on removing the page I won't hesitate and insist to keep the page like it was before. - remove the page? Why would anyone remove the entire page? Its ridiculous suggesting anyone would remove the page.

All the information that I have added to Preity`s, Rani`s or whoever`s page during my editing history was right and factual, exactly like this. - Not really. A lot of your edits have had to be removed because there was no reason to include them in an encyclopedia article, a very good example is what we are discussing here.

You also turned to Shez cause you wanted him to come against this to make 2-1 to your favour, but don`t think I`m concerned by this too. - I turned to Shez since Shez has edited this article in the past. Its called contacting editors who've worked on an article before. This is not a poll, so the number and/or distribution of votes do not matter. Unfortunately, your logic is flawed. Arguments on WP are looked at on the basis of merit and not number of people making them.

the fact that you join other users does not make me nothing - My apologies. I genuinely didn't understand what you're trying to say here. Perhaps you could put it more clearly?

By the way Shez is a big fan of Rani. I don`t know why but he hates Preity for this reason and he was always proving this in his edits. Go to the history and check, or even ask Plumcouch. - And there we go - you start off again about how this editor hates Zinta, and how that editor is biased against Zinta. According to whatever I've seen on the talk pages, you seem to believe that everyone except you hates Zinta. You accused me of the same thing, having some vendetta against Zinta. In fact, your behaviour indicates you seem to believe everyone hates Zinta. I'm afraid that your belief is misguided.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 03:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, you`re talking and talking and doing nothing (I mean in the talk page). Why don`t you add something about your very changeable edits and opinions rather than talking about me? I`m not attcking Shez cause I like him, we exchange messages every day and that`s the same what I told him directly (I mean that he hates Preity). If you ask Pa_7 or even see her talk page, you`ll see how many discussions and arguments she had with him for Rani Mukerji.

Today I`d like to work on Rani`s nominations so I don`t know what will be here, you`re just obsessed to remove these few lines which are very good for the page. Please think again. And why do you think someone will allow you to add Preity to the Marie Claire page? There are other users who will remove it. She is the first Bollywood actress to appear there therefore it remains here. Colbert reminded Preity out of 100 famous actresses. That`s popularity\Media. Like I said, the removal of this fact from SRK`s and Big B`s page does not interest me at all. Don`t you think it`s strange that I have to go to another pages for discussing Preity`s page? That`s pathetic. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Talking and talking and doing nothing - You don't let anyone do anything on this page.
• Today I`d like to work on Rani`s nominations - so work on them, add them on the awards and noms page. Whats the problem there?
• And why do you think someone will allow you to add Preity to the Marie Claire page - that is for you to do. If it is encyclopedic knowledge, as you believe, then it could be added in there. I've previously listed reasons why it shouldn't be here, if you would like me to repeat all the arguments against its inclusion, that is quite simple to do.
• Colbert reminded Preity out of 100 famous actresses - he mentioned several actors and actresses in that segment, actually. I've provided video links earlier, please do have a look.
• Like I said, the removal of this fact from SRK`s and Big B`s page does not interest me at all. - Like I said, until you understand the reasons for its removal from there, you will continue fighting here.
• Don`t you think it`s strange that I have to go to another pages for discussing Preity`s page? That`s pathetic. - No, its called reading up on precedents and discussing ideas with other WP editors. Both ideas seem difficult for you to understand, hence you brand them pathetic. xC | ☎ 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sikh?

I'm fine with the 'In the media' section. Although I think that the Colbert Report is useless. Bollywood actors don't need to be degraded to a small show in the US. We already know they are a phenomena everywhere in the world. Tomorrow, one can say she was also mentionned on the Apprentice. Celebrities are mentionned everywhere. It's unnotable. Anyhow, my main concern is whether she is sikh or not. I think this one is a good reference: [7] It has all the real names for all Bollywood celebrities who had different names before they entered the industry. Again, for Sikhs, their names are long like Preetam, that is if she is a Sikh and then they have a pet name like Preity. So, we have to keep Preity Zinta but in the section where it says real name in the infobox, Preetam could be put and besides that, this reference. I can vouch for a lot of people's names who have been changed as they entered the industry and they're correct. So, of course, why would they change Preity's name for no reason? - shez_15

That list was also taken from Wiki, as per the comments at the bottom. Also, its a blog, so we couldn't use it as a reliable external source. I doubt they'd change Zinta's name for no reason... Hmmm, Google isn't being very helpful about this, either... xC | ☎ 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG, she comes from Rajput family. Bobby Deol was calling her Preetam jokingly, that`s why people got confused earlier but everybody knows she is Preity from birth. It was never mentioned that her name is Preetam. Someone added it here and then many other net sources took it from WP. If you want I`ll bring refs. You can see KBC if you want and you`ll see she is Rajput. Ok, her is the ref of YouTube.com. Please put the viseo on this minute 03:10 [8] and here our discussion in this case has come to an end. --Shshshsh 12:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, see now we're getting somewhere. I've seen the video, and at the indicated point it is implied she is Rajput. Thanks for linking that, Shshshsh.

Is she only Rajput, or is she Sikh as well? As per Rajput, The census of 1931 recorded the existence of 50,000 people who claimed to be both Rajput and Sikh. Occasional instances of inter-marriage between them and Hindu Rajputs are recorded particularly those claming a common Gujjar ancestry. The seperate page Sikh Rajputs also indicates that it is possible for an individual to be both Rajput and Sikh. We know for sure she is Rajput now. Its just the Sikh part we need to verify.

About the Bobby Deol bit, since I don't know the details of the incident, I can't say anything. Perhaps if we had refs, quotes, something of the sort, it would be clearer.

Regards,xC | ☎ 05:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks xC. Agree with you. I bring the ref later. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 06:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

oKay, at least some mystery solved. So, she's Rajput. But yes, she can be half Sikh too from her father's side. Durganand is a sikh name. While, Nilprabha Zinta is Rajput. So, I think when her father died, she just became more of a part of Rajput. I don't know. But we need to find references. Her brother Deepankar also ties with a Sikh name. I'm confused. - shez_15

The last Popularity section.

Zinta has the most success among all the Bollywood actresses, having the highest success ratio of 65%. Zinta's trademark has been her dimple.

Zinta was ranked second on the Filmfare "Top Actresses" list in 2003-2004, and secured third position later on (2005-2006).[ref here]

In 2003, Zinta placed first on the Rediff's Top Bollywood Female Stars., and in the following years placed second three times consecutively (2004-2006).

Zinta was also on the Rediff list of 'Bollywood's Most Beautiful Actresses'</ref, and listed #41 by UK magazine Eastern Eye one of "Asia's Sexiest Women" (Sept/ 2006).

On January 9, 2007, Zinta was mentioned on segment "We The Mediator" of popular T.V show The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert said,"If Preity Zinta is there, you better fucking show up!" Zinta was also on the cover of the first issue of Marie Claire magazine to be sold in India.

So, It will be copied directly from here when the page unprotected, so there will no be more problems. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)