Talk:Priyanka Chopra/Archive 6

Split
This has been discussed/said by editors several times. Does anyone agrees with splitting this articles into another like that of this Bollywood star? This article is already huge and will get bigger in the future. Several editors have noted that they find reading this article like a huge task so I think less important sections such as Philantrophy, Music Career, Writing and some part of Media Image section can be moved to the companion article and this article will then mainly focus on her early life, acting career, Other work which can consist of some parts taken from the above three sections' important points, personal life and Media image. Plus this article has no mention of her entrepreneurship and her investments and if added, it will make this article even more bigger. And, now that she has started working in Hollywood, her article will expand further. So a split is a better option. This way it will be easy for editors and readers to read and navigate. Here is a mock version. What's say? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  00:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Priyanka Chopra is not the most important person in the world; and even if she was, every single minute detail of her life does not need to be in an Encyclopedia article. "An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge",...summaries. Maybe you should write a book about her.  Bollyjeff  &#124;  talk  02:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I just wanted to ask other people as they had said that this article was way too big and needed a split. Trust me I asked this only because I had seen several people saying it. I mean do you think I will create another page myself? Wikipedia does not run according to me. And I proposed this because, it would have made this article small. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  02:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not fond of the idea of splitting it up. In the last 90 days Shah Rukh Khan has had a daily average of over 11,500 views per day, whereas Shah Rukh Khan in the media has had only 158 views per day. I didn't like doing that at the time, but was kind of forced into it.  The better idea is just to remove some detail that is not so important when you want to make room for new stuff that is more important.  If the new stuff is not more important, then leave it out.  Save it for the book.  Bollyjeff  &#124;  talk  18:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Chopra's reviews for 7 Khoon Maaf
Positives
 * Sify: "Priyanka Chopra gives her career-best performance - she moulds Susannah into a character that evokes our emotions, not our rage. Chopra makes this character fun, flirtatious, kind, and impious at the same time.
 * The Times of India: "7 Khoon Maaf would undoubtedly end up as a milestone in Priyanka Chopra's career graph. The actor displays exquisite command over a complex character that is definitely a first in Indian cinema. She renders a subtle and restrained portrayal of a lonely and wronged woman who wanted love and only love from life."
 * Rajeev Masand: "Priyanka Chopra dives courageously into her role, sacrificing vanity and pride to play Susanna at different ages of her life and in often humiliating conditions."
 * Mayank Shekhar/Hindustan Times: "For Priyanka Chopra, who plays the Anglo-Indian protagonist, this is unquestionably a role of a lifetime. She has you by the eyeballs.
 * Daily News and Analysis: "Chopra is undoubtedly one of the best actresses we have in the Hindi film industry, and here she is clearly Bhardwaj’s muse. Chopra’s acting skills cover most of the flaws in the screenplay."
 * Koimoi: "Priyanka Chopra excels as Susanna. She does the fullest justice to her role and plays her character wonderfully."
 * India Today: "Priyanka Chopra, for one, showing tremendous courage."
 * Bollywood Hungama: "Priyanka accepts the challenge to portray ages from 21 to 65 in 7 KHOON MAAF. It must've been an arduous task to get the different age-groups right, but she proves her infinite acting potential yet again. Known to be an actress who stays true to every character that she is portraying, Priyanka delivers yet another sparkling, award worthy performance this time. There are several love-making sequences with her husbands and Priyanka has handled those [bold] sequences without inhibitions. I am going ahead with an extra star for Priyanka Chopra's sterling performance!"
 * Gulf News: "Chopra gives Susanna's fatal escapades a menacing touch."
 * Aniruddha Guha: ""Priyanka Chopra takes on a character that most of her contemporaries would shy away from and enacts it in a way that only she possibly can. For a woman with as many shades as Susanna, Chopra gets a crack at a role of a lifetime. And Bhardwaj ensures she sparkles like never before".
 * Zee News: "Priyanka Chopra gives a stellar performance. She essays the troubled Susanna with élan and almost manages to gain sympathy from the viewers each time she kills one of her husbands. A big thumbs up to Priyanka Chopra for taking the risk to portray such a dark character who is almost unapologetic about killing her husbands. The film has to be one of the biggest gamble that Priyanka played which has surely paid off!"
 * Mid Day: "Priyanka Chopra brings a zestiness to Sussanna that kinda makes you forgive her character's assassinations at first. In the second half she gets unbearably redundant." (The later part is criticism of the character's lack of killings in the movie. How is this about performance?)
 * Anupama Chopra: "Susanna is vain and cruel and Priyanka doesn't try to soften her. Instead she revels in the chance to go twisted, dark and frankly ugly. But beyond a point, even she can't prop up the sagging plot. (How is this her performance's criticism? Isn't this about the bad script?)
 * The New York Times: "She’s more conceit than character, and Ms. Chopra, though charming as always, can’t make her cohere. (Character criticism. How is this about her performance?)

Mixed
 * The Indian Express: "Priyanka Chopra fills out Susanna to the best of her ability, which isn't spectacular, but is never standard-procedure : there are a few real flashes of complexity in the way she comes off, though she left me wondering how she never seems to have any nightmares" (more character criticism)

Negative
 * Rediff.com: "Priyanka tries her best, but is simply not a good enough actress to justify being in a role this nuanced and demanding."
 * Khalid Mohammad review: I am unable to find it on web but let's accept it was negative.
 * The Hindu: Negative.

Make-up criticism?
 * Outlook: Says nothing abut the performance.

For the point that raised about her performance in 7 Khoon Maaf. Not every performance receives 100% positive reviews. Even Joaquin Phoenix's performance in Joker received several negative reviews but those are not mentioned on Wikipedia because those negative reviews were in small number as Wikipedia is against giving undue wight as per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  04:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for your kind words in the previous section. I appreciate it.
 * Secondly, I think you're misinterpreting the idea of WP:DUE. The idea is that all opinions should be heard, all the major viewpoints for that matter, and if there are a few reviews which are critical of her work (or character, by the way), they are noteworthy. Sometimes critical commentary could be so constructive that even if it does represent the majority view, it could be a good addition to an article which wants to be fair.
 * Now, I completely disagree with your summary - you included negative reviews in the positive list. I don't think a quote like "Priyanka Chopra fills out Susanna to the best of her ability, which isn't spectacular, but is never standard-procedure" - is mixed, or more about the character. Furthermore, NYT saying, "though charming as always, can’t make her cohere" is not just character criticism but criticism of Chopra's ability (or lack thereof). Similar observations could be made about "she can't prop up the sagging plot".
 * To sum it up, there's a number of negative reviews here (11 positive reviews and 8 negative, even if two of them criticise the character), but the article cites two very positive reviews, as if no one ever criticized her for this work. That's the idea of WP:DUE.
 * On a personal note, I find it a little boring when only positive feedback is included. It takes away from the credibility of the article. Trust me, PC is not going to lose sleep over what one or another critic said about her. I'd like to believe she's much above it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out as well, Shahid. In addition to one of the positive reviews in the article, I'd support the use of the NYT or The Hindu review, to offer us a balanced perspective on her performance. Please go ahead and make the change if you wish to. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I raised this concern on this very talk page several years ago. I wouldn't want to edit it now, because it would need more commitment and time for the whole thing. I really wish Krish himself would consider doing some changes.
 * I remember back in the day going through the reviews of Rani Mukherjee's performance in NOKJ and eventually adding this negative review by Anupama Chopra. I like it that it's still there and there's balance to the other review mentioned there. That line "Certain critics, however, were critical of her performance" is the key phrase here. Krish, this doesn't mean that it was necessarily received a mixed reaction, but that there were other opinions as well. It's all about how you write it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go and read what you wrote on Bajrirao Mastani talk page defending Padukone's performance? You defended her performance by separating stuff just like the way I did. If we are adding negative reviews for every performances of Chopra. Then we should start discussing reviews on every Bollywood actress' talk pages to bring this balance and it should start with Padukone, Balan and Kapoor. What's say? I can prepare the summaries like these on their talk pages about their film performances. Thank you Krimuk2.0 for your suggestion. Krish  &#124;  Talk To Me  16:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! . I added the New York Times review and you are so right. It looks great. I was worrying for no reason. You are right. It's just opinions of critics and we need different POVs. Thanks. I think we should do this for other actresses articles as well. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If my memory serves me right, I defended it just to not let you remove her name from the lead. Just imagine the amount of time and energy spent on it. I did not oppose to including negative reviews of Deepika on the page, or on her page, for that matter. Honestly, I simple don't care. Trust me, I really am neutral here. I haven't seen many films with either Deepika or Priyanka, haven't seen Bajirao Mastani (not a fan of SLB), and you'll be surprised to know I really am fond of Priyanka. Again, I'm not saying you should write she was panned, I'm suggesting to balance out the tremendous praise thrown at her for every turn. Even Meryl Streep does not get this much praise. Just see, Pauline Kael's negative review of Streep's performance in Sophie's Choice (!) appears on that page. Does it diminish her work? Absolutely not, quote on the contrary I'd say. See Shah Rukh Khan's page, on which a negative review of his performance in Swades, which was mostly applauded, appears as well. I find this practice of balancing really great. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But the consensed version of the article was removed by Krimuk who removed criticism of Padukone's performance in the article and changed the elad. So I think it should be re-added. What do you think, Shahid? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  17:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in this discussion, my edits to BM's page "shows the editor's regard for a balanced perspective, right in their edit summary. Further, it appears to me Krimuk was, in good faith, converting lengthy quotations to summaries, as is probably preferable. There was no malicious intent to disrupt anything". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay but I think "particularly Chopra, and Singh" and her photo should be restored if you are againt adding the criticism of Padukone's character. What's say ? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  17:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, singling out one actor over others, when no source explicitly states that that was the opinion of a majority of critics, would amount to WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:SYNTHESIS. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So then Padukone's performance's criticism quote from Raja Sen should be restored along with Chopra's picture. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Name change of the a section
Title of a section is an overall summary of the phase that a section discusses. Now coming to another controversial name change from "Widespread success" (the lead again says wider success/recognition) to just "Recognition for Barfi! and Mary Kom". This phase was her most successful box office wise and it is mentioned in the section that she starred in her biggest success of her career (some of the hits were biggest of all time at that period). Plus Mary Kom was a huge hit considering it still holds the record for the biggest opening day for a female led film. So why is her box office successes not considered in naming this section that covers her most successful phase and just her two acclaimed roles. While other Bollywood actresses all have "Widespread success" and such names in their most successful phase. What do you think, and ? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  18:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay then, I find the adjective "widespread" in relation to success quite vague and annoying to begin with and so I personally have never used it, but I agree that the heading could be renamed, I'm just not sure what. I see that during this time, she also had Agneepath and Krrish as her biggest hit. But then, I have a question: is it really the most successful phase of her career? Having a section named as 'whatever success' and then followed by a section named differently could imply that 2012-14 was her most successful phase, and then it went down. I would imagine the extension of her career into Hollywood as far more significant. From what I see, she acted in only six films during this period, out of which only four were very successful for her. I think Barfi and Mary Kom did stand out in terms of critical reception and awards. I do wonder though if 2009-2014, just a period of 5 years, couldn't be considered one sort of cohesive phase on its own - after all Barfi and Mary Kom are also unconventional/experimental in the sense that the previous ones are, and and Don2 was similarly a big hit. This period represents "success in experimental roles and action blockbusters" (not that this is how it should be named). I just can't look at these periods as significantly distinctive. But maybe it's just me. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Widespread success" means she had critical acclaim and "commercial success" both during this period. Also, Barfi! was also one of the biggest films of all time at that point. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But it is your definition, isn't it? I do know the meaning of the expression 'widespread success' - I just think it's often thoroughly misused. If it's about critical and commercial success, then why not write just that? Look, I do understand that bombastic terms are more favored by many, I don't blame you. I personally find it really unnecessary and quite journalistic. Then again, I asked you a question and you din't answer? Do you believe this was the most successful phase of her career? Do you not think it could be somehow combined with the previous section? I'm asking seriously, not challenging you at all. I just don't know enough. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not just my definition, it it how most of Bollywood articles are written. And as per media reports, her most successful phase as an actor has been from 2008 to 2015 and my own views does not hold candle here. But you cannot have a huge section from 2008 to 2015. Plus things are complicated as she also ventured into Hollywood in 2015 hence you cannot name the 2008 to 2015 section as this and this. I think we only need to change the name of this part. Is Wider recognition and commercial success ok? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. The one you just proposed seems okay to me, although I would rather just write "Established actress" which covers it all and consolidates her position as both a star and actress. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chopra established herself in 2008 with Fashion and Dostana so don't you think naming her 2012 section as established actress is contradictory and false? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  17:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * She established her herself in 2008, but she was already established in 2012. I think it concludes the "experimental period" as successful. But I guess you won't like it anyway. :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How is "experimenting of roles" synonymous to "success" when in that period those "experimental films" failed? How hard is it to understand that Chopra's article should follow the same rules that other Bollywood actresses' article follow? Why only her articles is being completely altered the way it has been? It's simple Chopra established herself in 2008 and then did experimental roles and then came her most successful phase from 2012 to 2015 but since in 2015 she ventured into Hollywood this year cannot be included in "successful phase" as it will make the section much much bigger. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  18:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot understand or believe your complaint about PC's article, which is an FA, being deprived compared to others. If you want to name the section wider recognition or whatever, do it; I think it would just make it over-the-top. One of the sections is named "Rise to prominence", which I find quite unencyclopedic and as a reader it makes it hard for me to take it seriously. I see Vidya Balan, Kangana Ranaut, Deepika Padukone - none of their sections is titled "widespread success" or "rise" or "prominence", and I have to say that some of them, especially Balan, probably had more critical acclaim and commercial success (in their starring roles) at some time than PC has with Barfi and Mary Kom, as far as I know. This involvement with the cover rather than the content is really not helpful, Krish. Maybe just name it "Further success" and that's it? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had forgotten about this discussion. Shahid, I don't think "further success" is an apt title as success is not one of her previous section's titles. I think "Wider recognition and commercial success" should be apt. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Look Krish, I'm just advising here and not making decisions. You are free to edit, just as others are free to agree or disagree with you, if they feel strongly about it. But trust me, less is more. 'Further success' does not mean the word success had to be there before. On the contrary, it means her experimental phase was good. But yes, I don't like it either. I just dislike the entire tone of these titles. In general I think of starting a discussion to remove all these titles across the board unless a reliable source summarises a period. That will prevent this one tiny breach where fans (not referring specifically to you) will glorify their favorite stars through POV-based summaries and titles. For example - "Rise to prominence"? What is that? What makes her prominent? Where is it mentioned that she became "prominent"? This period is just full of films no one (much less Chopra herself) remembers, and if someone does remember them, she is probably not the reason (come on, Don and Krrish are just star vehicles for the male leads and good for her that she was there, but that's not a sound reason for her so-called prominence). And with all due respect to the beautiful Miss Chopra, isn't it a bit of a stretch to call actors prominent, particularly on WP? This is exactly the kind of things that make intelligent readers (and I genuinely believe most of those who take the time to read articles are intelligent) not take an article seriously. Even SRK, a huge star, doesn't have these titles on his page in reference to his peak. And it's not just that - 2007-2008, just a period of two years, is called "setback and resurgence". I would imagine a setback to last longer than a year. Does she herself consider it a setback in her career? Then "Experiment with unconventional roles" - there are just two unconventional roles here - WYR and SKM, maybe three, and that too is a subjective claim. And not even once does the section mention that these roles are unconventional through Chopra's or the critics' reviews. You see, why not just focus on the content and let people decide what's what. If I were you I would just rewrite everything - see other FA articles. I would settle for these years (be titles whatever they be): "Debut and early roles" (2002-03); "Breakthrough with Aitraaz, success in action and setbacks" or just "Mainstream recognition and setbacks" (2004-2007); "Resurgence with Fashion and further recognition" (2008-2011); "Established actress" (2012-2014); "Expansion..." (2015-). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do dislike these exaggerated titles especially in Bollywood articles. But then again what you are suggesting should be implemented across the board. We could just use years (2002 to 2004. 2005 to 2010 etc), removing names completely. Now coming to "rise of prominence" it doesn't say rose to prominence in the the world but in the film industry. It was named "Early success" initially but was removed as then there would have been 3 success in the titles. But We can can rename it to "Early Success". Also, this phase of her consists of Box Office success such as Waqt: The Race Against Time and Bluffmaster in addition to Krrish and Don. Plus her performance in Don was met with positive acclaim and so did her performance in Yakeen. And again Chopra just did not bounced back with Fashion but established herself with it and Dostana. So saying has established herself in 2012 is factually incorrect. I am okay with removing titles in all Bollywood articles and just represent sections with Years. What do you think? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  19:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't reply to my last reply and I forgot about this too. After re-reading all your above post again, I kind of agree with you naming it "Further success" instead of "Widespread success". Do you have anything else to say? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  13:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just asking, but I see that all FAs are using "established actress". Wouldn't it be good here as well? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah! That indeed would be great but as per numerous sources, she established herself in 2008 with Fashion and Dostana. From 2011 to 2015, she starred in her biggest commercial successes. In fact several sources also claim that she established herself with Krrish and Don in 2006 (as the lead says here) and then came brief setback (with almost no release in 2007 and then four duds in 2008). This is my only concern as I would have agreed with you completely about this otherwise. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  19:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with Further success, Krish, but trust me, "established actress" is far more powerful. It doesn't mean she wasn't established before. You have Setbacks and resurgence (2007–2008) and then Experiment with unconventional roles (2009–2011), what could be stronger than "established actress"? It means she's at the very top of her success, not needing anyone's approval and not depending on experimental work or commercial success. It means she gets the best roles, that filmmakers are fighting to get her dates. For foreign readers, that would mean much more when they see that she shifted to Hollywood when she had already conquered her own industry. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying but trust me I wanted to use "Established actress" in the article but it didn't fit anywhere as her setback and resurgence happened in the same year. But we can use "Setbacks, resurgence and established actress" for the 2008 section if you really want to use it here. What do you think? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  20:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Setbacks, resurgence and established actress" sounds bad. And I see we don't think of being an established actress in the same way. If she had setbacks, she can't become established right away because of Fashion and Dostana, in the latter of which she was really just a sidekick. It's not how it works. I think that having had setbacks, resurged back, and then experimented different roles, could only culminate in becoming established. I understand that you think that established actress means that she wasn't established before (which it doesn't) and it annoys you, then go ahead and use "further success". Since no one opposes it on this talk page at the moment, and I don't oppose it that much either, I see no problem with it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "established actress" doesn't fit here as the trajectory of her career is really different. Now, coming to your point of "establishing", Kareena Kapoor was considered a flop actress until Jab We Met which established her (yes, just one fi established her) and same goes for several other actors in Bollywood. This is how Bollywood fandom media writes. In Bollywood, if you had 10 duds in a row and 11th is a hit, you are considered a huge star. This is how Bollywood portrays careers. Anyways, I have changed the name of the section and I must say you are really interesting to discuss Bollywood with. Thanks for your time. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  06:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved (non-admin closure)  ~SS49~   {talk}  02:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra Jonas → Priyanka Chopra – Procedural nomination. On April 23, this page was arbitrarily moved from "Priyanka Chopra" to "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" by one user, without any locatable evidence of a page move discussion to establish a consensus for that. However, our naming conventions are governed by the topic's WP:COMMONNAME, not necessarily their legal one — and even if she is technically "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" in her personal life, it is not at all clear that "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" is how she's normally referred to in the media: a Google search indicates that while media references to her as "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" do exist, they're far outnumbered by media references to her as just "Priyanka Chopra" — I've even found sources published within the past 24 hours that still refer to her as just "Priyanka Chopra", so it's not even clear that her common name has shifted since her marriage for the purposes of the "sources published after a name change carry more weight" test. I don't actually have any strong preference either way, and am perfectly willing to abide by whatever consensus decides — but since the page move did not follow proper process, there needs to be a discussion to ensure that whichever name we use for her is backed by consensus. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As per WP:COMMONNAME. She is still referred as "Priyanka Chopra" among fans, media and people. ~Amkgp ( ✉ ) 17:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:NAMECHANGES. Priyanka Chopra Jonas is how she is referred to in covers of major magazines, including Harper Bazar, InStyle, Elle, and |900:auto&output-quality=90 Vogue. The New York Times and Time refer to her as such as well. Plus, she self-identifies by the new name, so WP:SPNC applies here as well. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. ~ HAL  333  18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per COMMONNAME - 62,500,000 results "58,800,000" for Priyanka Chopra, 4,840,000 4,070,000 for Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Should clearly not have been moved in the first place. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Claims that the previous name is still more common is not true. On Google, "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" has ~122 and only "Priyanka Chopra" has ~104. She now self-identifies as Jonas and RS have picked up on it. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Coffeeandcrumbs - "Priyanka Chopra" 58,800,000, "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" 4,070,000 results, So therefore by a long mile her previous name is still the common name here. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have any evidence? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Priyanka Chopra Jonas against Priyanka Chopra -Jonas, many of them only a few hours ago! No contest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , come on! I know you know better than to trust the first page "results". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Results have been used as justification since the age of time...... If you have something better than please provide it. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the second, third.. or eighth page and look at the results totals. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact all I was looking at were the totals. Obviously you weren't. 4.9 million as against 59.7 million! Hmmm. Clearly Priyanka Chopra is her common name. Also clearly she is still being referred to as Priyanka Chopra. How exactly are you reading the results to prove that isn't the case? -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Similar case has been discussed with Kim Kardashian. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  05:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - She does use the Jonas name now but I doubt anyone actually calls her the full Priyanka Chopra Jonas, so let's go with the common name. Saimcheeda (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support far more often referred to by the "Chopra" name without "Jonas" added onto it. The move to include that name, even if part of her legal identity, seems like a case of WP:Recentism when she married 17 months ago (in contrast to many years of being publicly known by maiden name). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
her first flim is tamizhan,(2002)a Tamil movie acted with vijay and she is encouraged to debut sing a song in that flim change this because while we search for Priyanka Chopra's first flim it doesn't show up 2409:4072:512:37A6:310:F115:1925:E46A (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Racist attack on her in 2012
Please mention that she faced racist attack in USA in 2012. Source Rizosome (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversies
In June 2014, a road in Mumbai was named after Priyanka Chopra's father, Dr. Ashok Chopra. According to Prakash Gidwani, a social worker, "... I don't have any personal agenda against anyone but there are many other people after whom our roads should be named. I would have appreciated it more if the road was named after a freedom fighter or for that matter, one of the soldiers who died for the country." The mother of Captain Vikram Batra, who died at the age of 24 in the Kargil war, said no road in the country has been named for her brave son. "My son was awarded the Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military honor.. history shall never forget him. But today, when people want to name roads, nobody thinks of him. This is India's tragedy. An actor's father is being remembered instead of a martyr," said Kamal Kant Batra.

In October 2016, Priyanka Chopra apologised after being criticised for modelling an "insensitive" top on a Conde Nast Traveller magazine cover. The top has the words "migrant", "refugee" and "outsider" crossed out while the word "traveller" stands out. Both the actress and Conde Nast were criticised over the "privileged" message, with many pointing out that being a refugee was "not a choice". Conde Nast told the BBC their intention was to highlight labelling of people. Chopra told India's NDTV news channel "I'm really apologetic about sentiments being hurt. I have always been against labels. I am very affected and feel really horrible, but the message has been misconstrued."

In August 2019, Priyanka Chopra was accused of “encouraging nuclear war” over comments she made amid worsening tensions between India and Pakistan. In an exchange that was caught on camera, Ayesha Malik Malik said: “It was kind of hard hearing you talk about humanity, because as your neighbour, a Pakistani, I know you’re a bit of a hypocrite.” Malik cited a tweet sent by Chopra’s official account on 26 February in which the actress wrote “Jai Hind”, meaning “victory to India”. Malik added: “You are a Unicef ambassador for peace and you’re encouraging nuclear war against Pakistan. There’s no winner in this. “As a Pakistani, millions of people like me have supported you in your business of Bollywood.” Staff then grabbed the microphone away. Chopra, who is married to US pop star Nick Jonas, replied: “I hear you. Whenever you’re done venting. Got it? Done? Okay, cool.” The 37-year-old said “war is not something that I’m really fond of, but I am patriotic”, adding “but I think that all of us have a sort of middle ground that we all have to walk”. She added: “The way you came at me right now, girl, don’t yell. We’re all here for love. Don’t yell. Don’t embarrass yourself. “Thank you for your enthusiasm and your question and your voice.”

In June 2020, Priyanka Chopra took to Instagram and wrote on #BlackLivesMatter, "End this race war here in the US, and around the world. Wherever you live, whatever your circumstances, NO ONE deserves to die, especially at the hands of another because of their skin color." She put up the long post against Floyd's last words - I can't breathe'. Twitter users  called her and other bollywood stars out for what they referred to as 'selective activism'. Twitter users mentioned the irony in their support as many endorse fairness creams. The Twitterati also added that casteism is a serious issue in India as well, but not many have taken a stand against it."

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021
prianka chopra stared a food business citymail news hindi 8833pulkit (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, since the source is not an English one, if possible, please provide a translation of the part of the text you want to use to verify the content as well. – robertsky (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

2019 comments
I recognize this is a highly controversial issue, which is why I've taken to the talk page instead of being WP:BOLD. Chopra's 2019 comments regarding the (I believe) 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes attracted widespread media coverage from notable sources. Was there previous consensus not to include this?--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is included. See Priyanka Chopra. – robertsky (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
Priyanka Chopra- https:// www.newshelp.in/priyanka-chopra-all-movie-list/ 2405:204:A418:9D12:C41D:2337:835C:65CA (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
2405:204:A418:9D12:4C:C2AE:212C:3C29 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Priyanka Chopra- https:// www.newshelp.in/priyanka-chopra-all-movie-list/
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

BLM comments and skin lightening controversy
Bollyjeff reverted my edit that included a section on controversy over BLM comments and backlash over skin lightening. Bollyjeff refered me to the Wikipedia Criticism page and I realized that it is better to not label a section "Controversies" so instead I put the information under Personal Life. Thank you Bollyjeff for the assistance. The Chopra page currently reads as if it was written by her publicist and does not appear neutral due to the exclusion of any information that might reflect negatively. Let's strive for a bit more neutrality please. Taquim 01:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

The page reads like a press release. Too many details and nothing negative.UBU07 (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

2002 interview

 * Potentially useful source and  - an interview during the time of Thamizhan Neutral Fan (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources for aeronautical engineering aspirations
The one discussion I could find in archives about it is Talk:Priyanka Chopra/Archive 2. Could someone add citations for the said interview? Also, there is no mention of it in the body but only in the lead. I believe it might have been present in the body when the FAR was done. Or else, FAR wouldn't have passed. Could someone who has the knowledge of the article and the citations introduce it back in the Early life/Career beginnings section, where appropriate? MOS:INTRO -- DaxServer (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This article have lots of claims without proper source, The astronomer thing I don't buy that.Holland Tok (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)