Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

My suggestion for a new career sections

The previous version is a little bit tasteless. I don't really understand why the "2005-present" has been separated from the whole Success section.

My suggestion is like this:

• Since Zinta's career has been running very fast in the last 9 years, her Early Career would be 1998-1999. We can expand it a little, by adding some information about the beginning of her work.
• Kya Kehna was the Breakthrough of her career in the full sense of the word. She received her first nomination for Best Actress and it was her first hit which is also her solo release.
• Undoubtly, in 2003, came the success. She was the most successful actress of the year, winning awards and acting in the biggest films of the year.

So, that's the reason I'm doing that. If we use, 2005-Present in a separate section it sounds like all the success has gone since then till date. But the truth is that the actress had hits - every year, nominations - every year.

I waited for Pa_7 to hear her opinion, that's why I didn't put into action my edit intents yesterday. Please Pa_7 discuss here your thoughts. Best Regards --Shshshsh 13:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

International fame

"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.[72] She is also famous in Netherlands[73]"

This fact was there for a long time, but user xC objects to have it here. However, he/she didn't remove it from the page of Madhuri Dixit. I think Dixit deserves to have it. She is really popular and has a big and well honoured career. I know Zinta hasn't beaten Dixit's records, but if she also appears in the reference which describes the fact, why not mentioning it in her page too? I don't know why, but xC didn't have a look on Dixit's page and didn't remove it from her page like he did with Zinta. I see this fact remained on Dixit's page, so it remains here too. I like Dixit a lot, but I think it would be unfair to remove something from Zinta's page, while ignoring the existance of the same fact in Dixit's page. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 10:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

International Fame

I had brought this point up before, however User:Shshshsh insists on putting it back. The following content does not deserve place in an encyclopedia article-

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 Netherlands

Let us first look at the Middle East countries portion.The reasons why it should not be included fall in three categories-

1. The text itself
2. The reference used to support it
3. Implications of adding this text

1. The text itself -

• Zinta is very popular - why very? That is POV. Who decides her popularity? Do you have statistics showing that she is very popular?
• Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants - Is she the only celebrity whose portraits are used in beauty salons and shops? No she is not, so this is non-notable.
• along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit - that explains the very same thing. She is an actress. Just like the actresses whose portraits are used, hers are used as well. Why is this notable?
• This very same discussion has taken place before (refer to Archive2). I will repeat my concerns which I had raised earlier-
  • Are the mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons notable? They are not, so why should their details feature in this article?
  • Portraits of celebrities are used all the time, including in salons, shops, etc. Is it notable to write down exactly where all her portraits are used?

(2) The reference used to support it-

• The reference used to support the above text is - this page.
• Lets look at that first paragraph in the ref. It is written -

  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.

1. Khan, Deol, Rai, Zinta, Dixit are mentioned and alongwith that is written scores of others. She is not the only one mentioned in that article. She is not wildly popular that to the extent that all other filmstars are forgotten. She is just another filmstar among the scores that the people there like to watch. It is not just about Zinta. Remove.
2. The entire ref talks of Bollywood as a whole, and not Zinta in particular. In other words, using this reference and putting in these lines is fine for the page discussing Bollywood in general, but it tells us nothing about Zinta in particular. Remove.
3. The reference talks about Kabul. Why exactly should the beauty salons of Kabul be mentioned in the article? Why are the mirrors of Kabul so important that they and their details deserve space in an encyclopedia article? Remove.

• Now I have discussed the leading paragraph. If we search for the name Zinta, we find that actually it is only mentioned twice in the entire ref. The first is in the leading paragraph, where she is mentioned as one among the scores. The other is right at the bottom. I will copypaste the entire paragraph where it is taken from-

  "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!"

1. The entire thing is a quote from an individual. Who is this individual? The article tells us that she is Nilab Sadat is a beautiful young woman, who had to flee to Peshawar in Pakistan during the Taliban era to continue her education. Why is she notable? She believes that Zinta is very beautiful, and she is. Does that mean we put in this quote into the article? No, we should not. Remove.
2. Zinta is only mentioned twice in the entire article - first among half a dozen other names, and second in a quote from a non-notable individual. What exactly does this page prove then? All it shows is that Bollywood might be popular in Kabul, and that there is some individual named Nilab Sadat who believes Zinta is beautiful. Based on this, why should we keep this particular content in the article? Remove.

(3) Implications of adding this text-

1. The mirrors and their posters are non-notable. Adding them in means that every such reference which talks about anything even trivially related to a film-star would have to be added into an article, simply because its noted so. Theres a public toilet near an old school I know which had a picture of Rajnikant and a poster of Shah Rukh Khan stuck on it. Does that mean we add in those facts to the article? It is a fact that those posters have been stuck on the public toilets, but does that add value to the article? What encyclopedic knowledge do the readers gain by knowing about these mirrors and their posters? Allowing this content to remain would set a poor example in terms of quality of the encyclopedia, therefore it should not be included.
2. Right now we are discussing Kabul, next on the list is Netherlands. Then it will be some other country. Soon we'll have a paragraph full of countries whose names have been mentioned. Then we'll end up having a List of countries where Preity Zinta is popular. It is unencyclopedic to have such a list. Therefore remove.
3. 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.
4. Popularity is a very difficult thing to establish. Film-stars which are popular one minute can fall out of public favour the next, there are no statistics to establish sure-shot popularity and the concept of popularity as a whole is largely subjective. For example, the entire reference used is from the point of view of the journalist who wrote the article. On the other hand, market statistics, box office records, details about the films,etc. these are all verifiable solid facts. As an encyclopedia, we must deal with facts and not subjective opinions.

Now we can look at the portion stating her fame in the Netherlands, with this page given as a reference. Firstly, I believe as per WP:RS that youtube does not qualify as a reliable source. Secondly, all the points of Implications of adding this text hold true for this sentence as well. Simply adding names of countries where she is famous and/or popular does not add anything of value to the encyclopedia article.

Both these additions would be useful on a fanpage, or fansite devoted to Zinta. It might be interesting there as an entertainment list. However we are writing an encyclopedia article. Such additions bring down the quality of the content, and reduce how respectable the article is, and so should be removed.

Looking forward to all editors comments on the same,

Regards, xC | ☎ 11:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say your explanations are brilliantly displayed. I don't have any problem. I just have to comment on some things you said:

• I don't know why you think that if some actor shares one fact with another actor, it is non-notable. So Preity won the Filmfare award, Rani and Madhuri won too. Is it non-notable?

• YouTube is the most reliable source. Why? Because we see things for a fact. It is not written. When something is written, we don't really know whether the information is right or not, here we see that she is popular. (like I demonstrated you that she is Rajput.)

• List of countries where Preity Zinta is popular - Not at all. I don't think like this. But not everybody knows that she is popular abroad from India. Specially people who don't know her and read this article for the first time.

• I do agree with your points here. But A) you haven't reminded Dixit. B) We need more users to comment on it. Let's wait for Pa_7.

Till then, please don't remove. I don't want edit wars here. I will put into action some of your suggestions, but I won't remove it wholly. Well pointed xC. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I got all the messages from User:Shshshsh and User:Xc. I've been thinking about this sentence for a bit now: Moreover, Zinta is popular in the Middle East countries, like Afganistan, along with other Bollywood stars such as Shahrukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit. She is also famous in Netherlands. I think we can get rid of it altogether because it is very easy to assume she is popular in those countries. At first I thought it would be good to include her popularity scope but it seems a bit trivial and un-encyclopedic. I agree with all the points put in by User:Xc under Implications of adding this text. I also had a read of WP:RS and youtube is not an reliable source. Also I saw the video and all it shows are some screaming fans and the people shouting for her. Doesn't neccessarily mean that everybody loves her or that she is popular. In a way, the article mentions at the intro that she is a popular and successful actress. Also the movies she does are successful in the overseas market, most of them anyway. I guess people can assume that she is a popular actress. Then there is the issue of what classifies as popular. Who says she is popular in those countries, it's very hard to define. I will wait until some more opinions are written before I say more. Also I advise that the page is not edited for a while or else it will get blocked because of a edit war. -- Pa7 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, agree with you. When xC has posted his message I was already fine with it, but what do you think? Could we leave it in Dixit's page or not? Best Regards. --Shshshsh 16:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Till then, please don't remove. I don't want edit wars here. I will put into action some of your suggestions, but I won't remove it wholly. Well pointed xC. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh seems to believe that having rubbish on one page is reason enough to have rubbish on other pages. Once that line is removed from here, it sets a clear example for it to be removed from other such pages. I have looked at Dixit's page, and I wonder who put in that line. I have not had the time to go through the edit history.

• I don't know why you think that if some actor shares one fact with another actor, it is non-notable. So Preity won the Filmfare award, Rani and Madhuri won too. Is it non-notable? - awards are notable, mirrors and their details are not.
• YouTube is the most reliable source. Why? Because we see things for a fact. It is not written. When something is written, we don't really know whether the information is right or not, here we see that she is popular. (like I demonstrated you that she is Rajput.) - I am not here to debate about sources. Go fight with the people who worded WP:RS. Videos from YouTube are evidence that such-and-such thing exists, however it is generally not used within an article. If you don't like that, go argue with them. However, if you'd like to whine about it, then fine, lets keep the reference as is. Fact of the matter remains that the text does not deserve place in an encyclopedia article, so its accompanying reference hardly matters.

• List of countries where Preity Zinta is popular - Not at all. I don't think like this. But not everybody knows that she is popular abroad from India. Specially people who don't know her and read this article for the first time. - doesn't matter, this point has already been covered in my post above.

• I do agree with your points here. But A) you haven't reminded Dixit. B) We need more users to comment on it. Let's wait for Pa_7. - It will be reminded or whatever it is that you mean, from Dixit's page once it is sorted out here. As for other users, all other users on this page have already concluded that the entire block about popularity in so-and-so country should be removed.
• Till then, please don't remove. I don't want edit wars here. I will put into action some of your suggestions, but I won't remove it wholly. - no, I'm afraid it will be removed wholly.

Regards, xC | ☎ 02:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh seems to believe that having rubbish on one page is reason enough to have rubbish on other pages. Sorry? Rubbish? Let me remind you that Dixit is considered as one of the biggest actresses ever. So when I saw something like this in her page, and I realised that the fact is touching Zinta too, why not write it? it was there for a long time, that's why I thought it's acceptable.

I have looked at Dixit's page, and I wonder who put in that line. - WOW, you wonder. So nice of you! But why haven't you removed it from her page if you wondered? Your claim is that this is totally unencyclopedical information, but you still didn't touch. I really don't get it.

Please either remove it or I add it to the page of Preity. Best Regards.--Shshshsh 07:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

She is a fantastic actress. The logic used to keep the sentence in is rubbish. Don't twist my words.

I have removed it from Dixit's page. I work on pages one at a time, or at best a handful running at the same time, which is why I didn't see it earlier. The fact is that nonsense of this sort has been thrown into the majority of the Bollywood pages, and must be cleared out if we are to turn Wikipedia into a respectable encyclopedia at any point of time. Either way, I believe this concludes our discussion. That entire portion on popularity in certain countries has been removed from Zinta as well as Dixit's page. Feel free to remove it from any other bollywood bio, citing this very same discussion as reason.

Regards, xC | ☎ 07:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already told you above that I liked your explanation and it was OK for me to remove it. The case was that it was strange for me, why not removing that from Dixit's page? Noy you tell me you removed that. Thanks and Best Regards, --Shshshsh 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm fine with the rest of the 'In the media' section. Best Regards, xC | ☎ 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion request is vague

The 3O request for this article is very vague: what is the "certain content" under dispute? It looks like the main dispute is being resolved amicably. I'll affirm in general that many Bollywood articles need to be edited to remove non-neutral statements made by fans. Let me know if you want a third opinion on anything more specific. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll drop a request if we need any 3O's in future. All editors on this page resolved the dispute between ourselves, and the issue about the content has been cleared out, so I don't think we'll be needing any third-party intervention for this. Still, thanks for your time and caring enough to drop by. Regards, xC | ☎ 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Polls on seperate page

Firstly, the position she has got on the particular list has been awarded to her. It is a list, whether by rediff or filmfare, or whichever other group which releases it. So it should be on the awards page.

Secondly, all the FAs which have their own seperate awards and noms page follow the convention of having popularity polls,power lists, things like that on the seperate page. The very point of having a seperate page is to reduce clutter on the main page.

For these two reasons, the lists should be on the awards page and not in the main article. Duplication of content should also be avoided.

regards,xC | ☎ 06:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that they are not polls per se, I have renamed the sections Polls -> Media Lists. Regards,xC | ☎ 06:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion Xc. Polls or even Media lists are not awards. In award pages, we list ONLY awards. As you said, that's MEDIA, and we have Media section in Preity's page. You can see Tom Cruise's page. He has section named popularity (which is the same in our case as In the media) and there are listed all the polls and Media lists he has. When you did it in Rani's page, I could get it somehow, cause it is unenciclopedic to make section named POLLS, but here, we have the required place to put it in. I repeat, polls are not awards, whether it comes from the filmfare magazine, the stardust or whatever it be. Please dicuss it before editing again. I hope we are not creating here another edit war. Best Regards, --Shshshsh 10:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars are for people who don't have the decency to use talk pages.

See, they aren't polls, which is why I oppose them being included there. They are positions awarded on a list by a small group of people, in this case rediff and filmfare. Therefore the section should not be named Polls, as nowehere in the sentences is the word polls mentioned.

They are therefore awards, positions awarded to the actress by said group of people. However, your example of Cruise's page is worth a look. At best, we can put them in In the media section, which should be on both pages. xC | ☎ 11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there's nothing worthy of long and tiring arguments here. We are not removing that. We're just discussing where is the better place for it.

Of course Xc, That's exactly what I said. It should be in the In the Media section. That's not polls, you're right. Your title was Media Lists, so why not to put it in the Media section in Preity's page. That's still not an award trophy, that's list. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 11:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Regards,xC | ☎ 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

If we're talking about Media, so we can live there tv appearances, polls (media lists), success, trademark. Half of the page here could be regarded as Media. So what? We have to match everything to its most notable belonging.

• Cannes it is not media - Commitment
• Filmfare is, but it's more representation rather than media.
• Art gallery - she was the guest honour - it is not media at all.
• GoAir - Media? No no Not at all - commitment.

If the insistence to put it all in the same section remains, so please let's rename the In The Media section again as Popularity. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Fact

Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.

The site has a malfunction. It doesn’t include Veer-Zaara in Rani’s filmography. Thus, the above statement cannot be used as both actresses have 7 hits. [1] Veer-Zaara includes Amitabh and Hema in it who have ten minute roles but not Rani. An error. [2]

- shez_15

Kudos to Shez 15 for pointing out a glaring error in the article. In fact, Shez had pointed this out long back on one of the user talk pages as well, except that was ignored by that editor. Excellent work, Shez, we need more watchful editors like you. xC | ☎ 12:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK he is really wonderful, but it's important to note that here the site mentions also Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, where she had just a cameo of ten minutes. So they forgot Veer-Zaara, but they put K3G so that's ok and the fact is still the same. You could never consider K3G as a film of her. Cameo is cameo, so they were wrong putting it in her filmography too. BTW, our reference in Preity's intro is about this generation of actors, while grossing film is considered here as a film that does more than 25RS crores from this generation. In fact, Preity has 8 major grossers in her career, while Rani has 6 (as per the site) if you look the adjusted version. Rani is just listed b4 because of TRRP gross, cause there they are going according to total gross and not number of major grossers. but it still marks that Preity has 8 and Rani 6, cause TRRP was just an average performer at the BO and wasn't a big grosser. Sorry guys, Best Regards, --Shshshsh 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, xC, please be direct and if you mean that I was the one who ignored this fact from Shez, say that. And he has never said that. If he had known that before, he would have removed that way before. And if you mean the recent message of yesterday, I had posted my message to him before you did it here. --Shshshsh 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are terribly self-obsessed if you believe that every time I say 'certain editor' it refers to you. I genuinely do not remember whose talk page Shez 15 brought this issue up, but I am certain that Shez 15 has mentioned this point before. In fact, now that you've reacted this venomously for no apparent reason, I'm fairly certain it was on your talk page. I'm on RC patrol right now, I'll look up a diff and post it here. Regards,xC | ☎ 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing statements which could be misconstrued as a personal attack. I do not wish to have anything more to do with this page at this time. Shshshsh, you have got your wish, please carry on as you like - I won't try to cleanup this page anytime soon. My best regards,xC | ☎ 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro debate (doing one thing after the other)

Preity Zinta (Hindi: प्रीति ज़िंटा, Urdu: پریتی زینتا. Pronunciation: /priːti ziɳʈaː/ born 31 January 1975)[1] is an award-winning Indian actress who appears in popular Bollywood movies. She is among the most successful actresses in the industry,[2] and is regarded as one of the biggest names in India.[3] Zinta has primarily acted in mainstream cinema having the biggest hits of the last years, but has also done some critically acclaimed films.[4] Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.[5] Zinta has also worked in the Tollywood industry.[6]

Comments: Don't know about the Hindi and Urdu. Award-winning Indian actress is fine, I'd crop "popular". Her movies are not popular with everyone. How about:

... actress who is primarly working in the Indian movie industry popularly known as Bollywood.

Successful is correct, biggest names is a bit unencyclopaedic. No ordinary encyclopaedia says "biggest names". If one sees her award section, they'll know how "big" she is.

Next thing, how about: Zinta is successfully working in mainstream cinema. I'd crop the "critically acclaimed"-part. Her awards show how "critically acclaimed" she is.

Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.

This can change with any movie. It's too unstable, so I suggest to leave it out. Same thing for the Tollywood part. How many Tollywood movies did she do? One? Not notable.

Please, please comment.

Best regards,--Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see Plum's picked up the lead para. I agree with everything here, especially the Tollywood movie - I always wondered why it had to be in the lead. It can be mentioned in the career as a one-liner and later in the filmography, its unneccessary to have it in the lead. Regards,xC | ☎ 17:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Primarily acting" and "critically acclaimed" "Mainstream cinema" are not always seen in the awards sections. I think they should be kept. They are so neutral. If I`m not wrong, Pa7 has written that. Not me. It`s not overdone. and please keep the critically acclaimed.

Biggest names. I like it cause it`s true and unique statement. Anyway, it was posted there when there was a war of statements between me, Shez and other users. So I put this as well as Shez put his one (today she has emerged...) in Rani`s page. To be honest, both of us know that it`s true. She is mentioned everywhere. We don`t say THE biggest name, just ONE OF. never mind. Let`s discuss it.

Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.

This can change with any movie. This could change undoubtly, but it hasn`t changed yet. This fact expresses her success at the B.O. Who knows, all her films this year would the highest grossing films. wouldn`t it?

OK, popular films is a little bit worthless. If we say she is popular, so it`s clear that she has popular films. Fine.

Yes, if you say primarily acting in bollywood, it means she`s worked out too.

Best Regards:-) --Shshshsh 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my version as for now:

Preity Zinta (Hindi: प्रीति ज़िंटा, Urdu: پریتی زینتا. Pronunciation: /priːti ziɳʈaː/ born 31 January 1975)[1] is an award-winning Indian actress primarly working in Bollywood. She is among the most successful actresses in the industry,[2] and is regarded as one of the biggest names in India.[3] Zinta has primarily acted in mainstream cinema, but has also done some critically acclaimed films.[4] Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.[5]

What do you think?! Much more neutral. Don`t you think? Why don`t you write your brief version. Common guys! I`m enjoying. --Shshshsh 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Zinta has primarily acted in mainstream cinema, but has also done some critically acclaimed films.

I don't know - it kinda sounds like "If it's mainstream, it cannot be critically acclaimed." as if mainstream excludes "critcally acclaimed". Maybe we could rephrase it? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC) PS. You get my suggestion and the answers to your questions on my talk page tomorrow, Shahid, as I have a paper due on Tuesday and am kinda about to panic. ;)

Yes I don`t have a problem rephrasing that. I don`t know, I like this statement so much. this critically acclaimed films is so neutral. We didn`t even say that she is acclaimed. We said that she had some critically acclaimed FILMS. In other words she was a part of an acclaimed film. Don`t you think? Anyway give me your rephrase. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 09:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)