Talk:Veena Malik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trending in twitter[edit]

She also has become the first Pakistani to trend on Twitter, following her televized fight with a mullah. Since its noteworthy enough for Charlie Sheen, is it possible to add that to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.181.93.198 (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Ok. managerarc: here you go:

1. I agree that Cinehour is a gossip website. I will remove the contents in my next edit 2. Visit the official website of BB4. It has many videos of them kissing and fondling. I will post the link on my next edit. For the next point, I will remove the "Struggling actor comment" as if the world didn't know about Mr. Ashmit Patel.. huh.. 3. Samaylive is not an unreliable source. It is a more reliable source than The Express Tribune, The Jung Group and Fashion Central. I wish you had the wits to understand this. Don't try to portray a false image of your client. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolyme (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good, if you are removing it.
  • Such videos cannot be considered reliable sources.
  • Your opinion about the website does not matter. Please prove how it is a reliable source? - Managerarc talk 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the whole section "Veena Malik nude in adult movie" is pasted from [1] in violation of WP:Copyvio. - Managerarc talk 16:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't try to portray a false image of your client." Please refrain from making these kind of statements.

1. Samaylive is an established media source. It can be added that Ms. malik has not yet confirmed whether the nude pics are hers. 2. Ok.. how about this: " Adult nude movie features Veena Malik". Happy?? .. huh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolyme (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@managerarc: "(Revert copyvio etc, see talk page)": abe kahe ka talk page. i will edit it again and again and again... u just wait and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolyme (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

This article needs a careful review with an eye to WP:BLP, and any potential violations should be removed and discussed. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Controversies section after reviewing all its sources. This is exactly the type of sensationalist, tabloid journalism mentioned in BLP. --Ronz (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Personal life section for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed back the 'Early life' section, removing material that is not verified by the source there, and requesting a citation or rewrite for, "Her father often remained away from home, so she was brought up by her grandmother and mother until she was in her late teens when her grandmother died." This information isn't in the source, but introduces her grandmother for the following sentence. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday[edit]

Everything I can find agrees on Feb 26, but the year varies widely, from 1978 to 1984. Anyone want to propose a solution? --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her official website says 26 February 1984 [2] and the Bigg Boss 4 official website gives her age as 26 [3].--- Managerarc talk 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more comfortable with a better source. Otherwise we either leave it out or do what was done at Rebecca De Mornay.
Anyone familiar enough with the news media in India to track down the most reputable news sources there and see if any has published a short bio on Malik? --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Managerarc: There's a reason why her official website or the Bigg Boss website can't be used- see WP:SELFPUB ok?
Have scanned the online news media in India. Found some 15 odd media links. Exact Stats were: 1984: 2 websites, 1980: 2 websites, 1978: 11 websites. So, its a divided house. I am more in favor of leaving it out at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolyme (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are the years I found as well. None verify the 1977 date that the ip insisted was correct. I'm for leaving it out until someone finds a source that we agree is reliable for the information. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added the date, removed the year.Boolyme (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of doing the same. It's a bit strange not to have a year. Let's see what others think. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources [4] and [5] confirm that she celebrated her 27th birthday, which means her year of birth must be 1984. I don't think there could be any problems in adding it now. --- Managerarc talk 18:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those are good enough. Patel and Malik are just being consistent with that Malik has on her website. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with Patel and Malik's website. These are articles from reliable sources, which WP works upon.--- Managerarc talk 11:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer an in-depth biography as a source, and I think we should avoid anything that's even borderline tabloid-style journalism. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over a year later and we've no progress. Unless a substantially better reference can be found, I don't see how we can justify choosing one date over the others (1984 vs 1980 vs 1978). --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see the reference below to confirm her accurate age which is 26 Feb 1987, she turned 26 this time. Her previous official website(veenamalik.com.pk) directs to the new official website i.e. www.veenamalikofficial.com which also states the same. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Veena-Malik-wants-to-break-four-more-records/articleshow/18953268.cms --Merockys (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a new date. Her official website used to say 1984. All the more reason to wait on a clearly well-researched reference rather than interviews, press releases, self-published sources, etc. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are her official team and wanting to update all correct information regarding her age, projects, family etc. 'Times of India' is number one newspaper in India which wrote the article. We even have her birth certificate if that helps! I am unsure what best we can provide to get her proper bio here. We don't mind the neutrality on things but definitely accuracy on facts! --Merockys (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've demonstrated that her official site (and likely every other source we have) is unreliable. Until your recent bit of pr, the dates varied from 1978 to 1984. Now you're adding 1987 to the mix.
"My date of birth is 1984. I have my passport to prove it" [6] --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a confusion since the start as by mistake her date was entered as 1984 in one of the TV shows 'Bigg Boss' in India and since then it was carried forward. I believe she never tried to clarify it actively. Now if the birth certificate(which can be attached) is not proof enough then what is the solution? Apart from this her project details as well as about family is not proper. --Merockys (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She said she was born in 1984, and offered a passport to verify that date. Do you understand this? --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK will provide the details on how the confusion started. Firstly when she entered BIGG BOSS they kept her age 1978 which was wrong by a decade. Obviously she being inside the 'house' didn't know about same. There were many who picked that up and continued to write the same. Then after her managers intervention they again put a wrong date of 1984 and even the 'then' team was not clear about things. This again continued. She later on tried to clarify in vain and hence the article which you are referring to. She even gave an interview to MIRROR where she told them that her age was wrong by a decade which they again misunderstood(that that the FHM controversy added 10 years to her age). The press/media gets things wrong as well! http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/veena-malik-nude-pose-pakistani-281077 We can provide a passport copy but not a public forum here but a direct email.--Merockys (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to try to resolve this, but we can try. We need to get other's involved. I'd guess that WP:BLPN might be the best place to do so. I'll start a discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a BLPN discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw the BLPN posting.  Looking at a passport is a job better done by a reporter or a government official, than by Wikipedia editors.  I looked at the FHM article, and it is full of various opinions about the extent to which Malik was or was not nude on a photo shoot.  Likewise, this uncertainty about birthdate looks like it could repeat as often as it is useful for publicity.  I'd suggest reporting all of the different birthdates in the article, and let readers figure out that Malik has not been a reliable source for her birthdate.  If a reporter looks at the alleged birth certificate and writes an article, then there is more information to add to the article, and maybe over time reliable sources will settle in on one date.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following up from March 2013 BLPN discussion[edit]

i agree, lets get more reliable sources and the latest ones.--Merockys (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't see how we could begin to follow BLP if we reported all the dates.
I think we're back to where we started: until there are better sources, we leave it out. This was the solution at Rebecca De Mornay and Lydia Cornell. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, I'm wondering what you are seeing in BLP that prevents using reliable sources.  As I have written in the essay WP:Inaccuracy, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating is absolutely correct. Just four days ago, this story had Malik herself saying (again) that she was born in 1987 (26 Feb, which is not in dispute). Her official website also states that date. Also, this website displays a tweet of hers that indicates she was born in 1987; the tweet was posted on 16 Feb 2012 and she says she's 24 (at that time). So all those sources have her saying she was born in 1987. Do you have any reliable sources that have saying she was not born in 1987?? The only uncertainty appears to be what her actual age is. Haha. She sure looks older than 26, but fortunately that's not for editors of Wikipedia to determine; we can only go by what reliable sources tell us. And what's most important in the discussion here is that the subject herself has consistently reported that she was born in 1987. Listen to Unscintillating and add this reliably-sourced content to the article. Just say what she says: "Malik says that she was born on 26 February 1987.[cite][cite][cite]" That absolutely not only should be in the article, it must be in the article. Otherwise, you're doing a disservice to this BLP. Also, you can add the discrepancies reported by other reliable sources, such as "However, several media outlets have reported that she was born in a different year, including [year], [year], [year], and [year].[cite][cite][cite][cite][cite][cite][cite][cite]" (however many years and cites you have). Per WP:VERIFY, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." That's precisely what Unscintillating and I are advising you to do. It's policy for goodness sakes. Now do it and end this two-year discussion. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Unscintillating made an excellent point in the BLP/N discussion. He said, "Patterns of inaccuracies can be useful to our readers, so there is more here than finding The birth date." I really liked it when I read it because it's so true and so on-point. We have all this information available about her age (what she says and what other reliable sources have said), yet it's purposely being kept out of the article. That's not the way to go. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are contradictory, and none looks substantially better than any other.
I say simply follow BLP, rather than create original research to add a controversy within an article: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies...We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source..." --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, the section you quoted is completely inapplicable to what we are advising. Haha. Did you even read what you pasted? You need to educate yourself on what original research is all about. Citing reliable sources obviously cannot be OR. What we are saying in no way whatsover violates BLP. Not even close. I have even shown you exactly how to enter the content into the article! Ugh. Please stop ignoring WP:VERIFY, which you inexplicably refuse to even acknowledge. You have a substantial misunderstanding on how to handle this issue. We have told you what to do, per policy. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz i agree with others, lets have what Veena Malik has to say about her age and incorporate other reliable sources as well. Its been a very long discussion, as with passage of time there would be more sources we could refer to. --Merockys (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also her parents got married in 1982 and she is a third child in family with two elder sisters. As far as her appearance on the 2000 film is concerned, if you aware about actors they are made to look different/older/younger with makeup etc. and hence cannot be judged by looks alone my friend.--Merockys (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the relevant policies and guidelines is not an argument for violating them.
The sources simply aren't reliable for the information in question. That's demonstrated by the contradictory information that they print, with no attempt at "fact-checking and accuracy."
Likewise, the editors here are cherry-picking sources they personally want to use, while ignoring ones with contradictory content. That's an NPOV and OR violation.
This is a BLP. "We must get the article right."
This is a biographical article about an entertainer. "Typical for such articles, we have a very difficult time finding reliable sources amidst all the tabloid journalism about her." --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We perhaps have consensus. Ronz now stands alone in his position. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't resolve disputes by ignoring our policies and guidelines, let alone violating them. That goes for following WP:DR and WP:CON as well as content policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, no one agrees with you. It's really time to stop your intransigence and accept the consensus of multiple editors. The relevant policies and solution have been made abundantly clear to you. We're just about done here. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz if you have a better option then pls put in on table. We cannot not have her DOB missing from the page for another 2 years! --Merockys (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I haven't seen the sources, so I can't weigh in on WP:DUE, but there is one particular point in your position, which seems to be that contradictory information is of necessity a violation of our BLP policies.  Given reliable verifiable sources, IMO the only question is if the information is insignificant.  I agree that contradictory information reduces the significance, but there are few "facts" which are indisputable.  Would you agree to add this issue to a footnote?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Ronz still refuses to accept what the other editors here are telling him or to acknowledge several very reasonable solutions that have been presented. He is also disrupting the BLP/N discussion with distracting comments. It's concerning that he commented there with no real substance, yet has inexplicably chosen not to answer Unscintillating's question about the footnote. Unscintillating, Merockys, and I are all now in agreement that it's time to make some edits. We really need to make a decision on them so that we can finally close this thread. As Merockys wisely stated, this matter cannot go on for another two years. Let's put an end to this. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add my voice here (since I'm about to close the BLP/N discussion to keep this in one place). I agree with Ronz on principle. If there is no single, reliable secondary source for the birth date, then it should be omitted from the bio. There are plenty of precedents on this throughout the encyclopedia. The only reason arguing about this would be worth it would be if the birth date were of some tangible consequence, associated with the subject's notability, or of historical value. I don't see that as being the case here. Sending a photo of the passport or birth certificate to OTRS (which has been done in other cases) is not very useful since it's a primary source. I think it's a bit too much to add a whole set of "X said she was born this year and Y said this other year" disclaimer-type intro to the bio. I just don't see the point. But we work by consensus so it's up to you guys. I'm just giving you my opinion. Either way, unless we get a specific communication asking us to omit the birth date there's little we can do. On the other hand, someone might want to summarize the consensus here in a more readable form and take !votes. As long as WP:BLP is not being trampled, have at it. I just think it's excessive to spend this much time on a non-issue. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion, you would know that there are multiple sources in which Malik herself has given the same birth date. It doesn't necessarily mean it is her actual birth date, but that doesn't matter because no one's saying to put it as fact in the infobox or the lead. What it does mean is that she says she was born on a certain date. Multiple times. It is utter nonsense to keep ignoring this fact and to advocate for hiding this very important information from readers. Reporting what the subject claims to be her age, based on reliable sources, is vital information. So to call this a "non-issue" is absurd. Reasonable solutions and relevant policies have been clearly given to resolve this matter. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, its definitely a an issue for the person whose age has been constantly mentioned wrong especially that of an actor whose work suffers due to same and the people who need to get accurate details. --Merockys (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz and others, are we awaiting update from someone or leaving it; as it is? --Merockys (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013 discussion of birth date[edit]

The age still shows up as 29 in google search where there are numerous articles mentioning her correct age i.e. 26. Here are a few links!

I believe this should be enough to convince people. @Ronz updating it, she is the only celebrity i have seen with so much incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merockys (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since there are no reliable sources for her birth year (she is not a reliable source, as she's quoted at least two, if not three, years), it should be left out. Furthermore, 1987 is clearly not correct; this would mean she was 13 when she made "Tere Pyar Mein", which anyone viewing it can see is not credible. (Obviously this is WP:OR, but when information is not crediable and has not been confirmed by reliable sources, we leave it out). Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • If the links quoted are not reliable then what is! These are some of the top media houses(and this is not her talking, pls read properly) Again if you went though the discussion above you would see that she was misquoted and the result of the confusion. She was 14 in her first film and you cannot alone use the visual/individual perspective. Some of the artist have been to look 10 years older/younger and if you not aware the reason being makeup/camera/presentation etc. Merockys (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you reconcile that with the fact her own website used to give her birth year as 1984, and such sources as [7] [8] [9] [10] etc? And seriously - for a moment - is that actress in that 2000 film 13 or 14 years old? Clearly not. Black Kite (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the subject is on record as giving three different birth dates for herself, then she and her management simply are not reliable sources for the information, nor is any media outlet that take their statements at face value. They've created a situation where it's now extremely difficult to find reliable sources. Almost identical situations were occurred with Rebecca De Mornay and Lydia Cornell, and were resolved by finding multiple sources that preceded any attempts to confuse their birthdates. I doubt that such sources exist for Malik. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have done a detailed research on this and explained above, but for your clarity. When she entered Bigg Boss house they displayed her age incorrect as 1984 and that was picked up by every media company. She was unaware as she was 'in' the house. This is where even her website team took the content from. When she came out of the house after 3 months thats when the she realized but was too late and still being picked. The Mirror article says 'is believed'. Really?? Is that credible! MSN source, does it look like an article? And i am still trying to figure out the last link.

You are pitting these articles again First Post(pls install alexa if you dont know about it) Times of India and Indian Express(pls google) Again about looks its your personal view and PLS DONT impose that here!Merockys (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your research is WP:OR, unless you find reliable sources to support it. Ignoring sources that don't fit the stated outcome is a BLP and NPOV violation as well. We've been over this... --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, yes i know her personally and hence the detailed research. If you would have seen recently all articles are mentioning the 1987 age as slowly things are getting clarified. The references above are credible ones, it's difficult for me to understand what better can be referred. Pls explain like do i get a birth certificate etc....so i can work on it. Merockys (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see someone who should know better (and for disclosure brought a WP:SPI case against me) arguing that inconsistent facts make a source unreliable.  If such was true, we would not have the article Dewey Defeats Truman.  In fact, potentially erroneous facts (properly presented) may be of interest to readers.  For further information, see WP:Inaccuracy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, clearly the source is unreliable if it keeps changing its story. If someone wants to write a section pointing out the inconsistency of the birth date, then that would of course be fine. What we can't do, at the moment, is present one of the options as fact. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(For reference, the BLPN discussion is here.)
Adding material about the inconsistency of the birth date would violate BLP, OR, and NPOV without first finding an source that addresses the inconsistency.
To elaborate on Rebecca De Mornay: Editors found a source that mentioned two possible dates, as well as her birth certificate. I bet a bit more digging will find more given her father was a public figure at the time of her birth.
For Lydia Cornell, editors found her birth certificate and a news article about her when she was nine.
And [11] mentioned above gives an age of 25, so its not consistent with the others that are supposed to be consistent with each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 discussion of birth date[edit]

No new sources or explanations have been offered, so I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 discussion of birth date[edit]

I removed the info once again, along with the two contradictory sources. No explanation as why one date was chosen over the other. Both are very poor sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2021 discussion of birth date[edit]

I've remove them once again, per the reasons given above. --Hipal (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of edits carried out today[edit]

1. Fashion Central is a gossip website. It is not an acceptable source of reference. 2. Cancelled NPOV violating interpretation of some of the lines about her grandfather. 3. Some information were not mutually exclusive. Some statements can easily be derived from others if one follows logical thinking. No need to add useless lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolyme (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit, then trimmed out the recent addition that is unsourced about their family and grandfather.
You may have missed it, but I'm awaiting responses to the information about her father that introduces her grandmother as noted here.
Also, as I noted in the discussion directly above, it would be helpful to find better sources.
I've started a RSN discussion here --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many days should one wait? I propose immediate deletion of the concerning parts. Boolyme Talk!! 16:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Filmography[edit]

Citations are required especially for those films which have no wikipedia hyperlink. Otherwise, it is better to remove them. I have added the [citation needed] link. Boolyme Talk!! 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removed the {citation needed} part. Boolyme Chat!! 10:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References whose reliability is in question[edit]

1,4(Fashion central), 5(Fansite), 3(Rediff), 9,13(InStep:Jang Group) I will try to search for alternate references. If not, they might be removed soon. Boolyme Talk!! 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply questioning them is not reason to remove them. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may try to reach a consensus before editing anything here.So, no need to worry Boolyme Talk!! 22:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've indicated in the RSN discussion and in the article that we need help finding better sources. Let's see what that gets us. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be deleting the concerned parts in the next 24 hours. Boolyme Talk!! 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rush?
There are less than 600 jang.com.pk links in Wikipedia. The movie review seems acceptable. We'd need to be careful with "Who’s the boss? Veena for sure."
There are over 7,000 rediff.com links in Wikipedia. I think it's safe to say that it's considered a reliable source in many situations. I don't see any reason why it's not appropriate for being used as it is. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How to check how many links are there for any website on wikipedia? Boolyme Talk!! 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used this with some searching tricks, rather than repeatedly clicking to the end. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as the filmography table is concerned, we may not know whether the movies are notorious, B-grade or adult in nature. This may prove harmful and violate the BLP guidelines. Boolyme Talk!! 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with simply verifying the information, then see what we get. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the fashion central referenced part. See WP:RSN. I will wait for a consensus on the verifiability of other parts. Boolyme Talk!! 10:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of unreferenced items[edit]

I propose deletion of unreferenced items in filmography and television immediately. These programs may contain potentially libelous content. Hence, for a vandal=prone page like this, they should be immediately removed. I will do so in the next 24 hours if I get no counter argument. Boolyme Chat!! 10:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmographies don't need any sources. The films have pages of their own. --- Managerarc talk 11:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about those which don't have a page of their own. Boolyme Chat!! 13:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Feel free to contact on my talk page if you disagree Boolyme Chat!! 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reliable references[edit]

"Coming from a conservative Muslim family, she faced great adversity from members of her family, especially her father,[3] on her decision to join show business. "

This comment comes from her fansite. Hence, should be immediately removed. Violation of WP:NPOV Boolyme Chat!! 17:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Match Fixing and Veena Malik[edit]

If the NDTV link posted by ManagerArc is to be taken as a reliable reference, then it is to be noted that 20 out of 28 pages revolve around match-fixing and her links with Mohd. Asif. I beleive that Wikipedia is being used to create a wrong image of her by vested interest holders. Need someone to interfere in this shady business. I propose inclusion of an administrator to arbitrage.

Moreover, the NDTV Movies part is full of gossips. So, it can't be taken as a reliable source. Boolyme Chat!! 17:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Malik express news with mufti sahib and shahid in program Frontline part 1.mp4[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ek0-ETkFxI

Could someone explain what this video is about? Thanks. walk victor falk talk 00:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Veena Malik stayed as a house mate in the reality show Bigg Boss broad casted by color TV, in which her stay was controversial due to her dressing and activities with an Indian actor Ashmit Patel, when she returns to Pakistan she attend this program to answer the questions against her.Zeesolz (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See it here with english subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/v/pMnAmRa4NYw --89.244.120.170 (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could figure out how to get this youtube video mentioned in the article I would very much support it. "Controversy" section, maybe? Yes, please! 66.75.44.147 (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) ...that would be me, not auto-logged in. Pär Larsson (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FHM cover image[edit]

Controversy resulted in Pakistan over Malik's nude cover photo for FHM magazine India edition in which she had "ISI" written on her upper arm -- the initials of Pakistan's controversial Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency. "Row over Pakistan actress Veena Malik nude 'ISI' photo". bbc.co.uk/news. 2 December 2011.

(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 17:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[12] If anyone thinks the information is worth including at all, please discuss why it belongs at all given WP:GOSSIP, WP:BLP, and WP:RECENTISM; as well as how it should be presented in a neutral manner given the sources.
To me, it looks like a publicity stunt - maybe on FHM's part, maybe on Malik's, maybe both. Nothing worth mention in an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested the article be semi-protected, and asked for comment at BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added copy to the article based upon the above in the hope that it will slow the editing while we discuss this further. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 3 December 2011[edit]

Hi I want to edit Veena Malik page and want to add some more useful information. So please allow me

Hassanzubair786 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit here on the talk page, including a reliable source, and another editor will add it as appropriate. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources regarding photoshoot controversy[edit]

(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging up all the potential sources. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 December 2011[edit]

Please change her fathers name from Mohammad Ali Malik(incorrect) to Mohammad Aslam Malik(real name) also sometimes read as Malik Mohammad Aslam From 2 Authentic sources

Mohammad Aslam Malik's interview with a Pakistani television channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLkaVtoexs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsV8fX8DyVM - Veena Maliks father name mentioned in an Indian tv channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immi786 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YsvjGzVVpQ&list=HL1323418787&feature=mh_lolz 115.118.37.14 (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Pleas be more specific about what needs to be changed. —Commander (Ping me) 11:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal mongering[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means to disseminate gossip and scandal monger. Please let's stick to high quality sources and encyclopedic content. Please join the discussion above to suggest and evaluate potential sources before adding further material on the FHM image controversy. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the recent "disappearance." --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 28 December 2011[edit]

Her Fathers name is Mohammed Aslam Malik also read as Malik Mohammad Aslam Interview with a Pakistani television channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLkaVtoexs - Interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsV8fX8DyVM - Another mention in an Indian tv channel

Immi786 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In other words, try to find a different source than YouTube. — Bility (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel[edit]

Her upcoming movie supermodel has not been added to this page the film has begun production in Fiji http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?ref=archive&id=199870 --27.123.184.112 (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 May 2012[edit]


151.76.67.246 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)anjaam[reply] 

   supermodel
 Not done As per the instructions: "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." --joe deckertalk to me 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astaghfar show[edit]

I don't see how, even with a reliable source, this is worth mention. Looks like a clear WP:NOTDIARY and WP:NOTSCANDAL violation. --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I see absolutely no value in the new images. I'm still waiting some explanation from others.

I tend to avoid disputes on images, but it seems to me that for a WP:BLP we should have images that present the person's face clearly as well as some, if possible, that present the person in an image related to their notability. WP:IMAGE doesn't give us a great deal of guidance. --Ronz (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the page history, I think we should reincorporate another image removed without comment here. It gives a clearer view of her face than any others. However, the 'Dal Mein Kuch Kala Hai' promo image is good at full resolution. Perhaps it could be cropped to her face? --Ronz (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, her eyes are a bit squinted. Since there appear to be numerous editors interested in adding images from http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ solely, maybe one of those editors can contact the site and arrange to have the Veena_dal_mein_kuch_kala_hai.jpg image cropped. I'm not sure what the policies/guidelines are for doing it yourself, but that should be looked into as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a higher resolution image to work from, but it doesn't appear available. Looks like cropping it will not be a problem as far as copyrights and policies are concerned. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for Veena_Malik_at_Water_Kingdom_(9).jpg , it has all the problems brought up at this point in a single image and more. The eyes are squinted; it's not an image of just her face; she's wearing a wig, heavy makeup, and long eyelashes, making her almost unrecognizeable. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the cropped image. I'm not happy with how it turned out, but it's a definite improvement. I could make something much better from a higher resolution, less-manipulated original to work from. We should just keep looking for a better image. --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crop this one. It's way better.

--Imtitanium (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but at full resolution it lacks detail. Do you know where the original is on http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ ? --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i think the one that i just replaced your cropped version with is the best so far! let's stick to it! Imtitanium (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad at all. The focus is a bit too soft, but definitely an improvement. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this as well. http://veenamalikofficial.com/images/downloads/11.jpg --Merockys (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering. What we need are images with higher resolution that are portraits of her face per WP:IMAGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 August 2012[edit]


Pls edit her official website as www.veenamalikofficial.com which can be confirmed from her twitter account https://twitter.com/iVeenaMalik Merockys (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of all the "official" websites, facebook pages, and twitter accounts. Can you explain the situation, perhaps providing an independent, reliable source identifying her current management? --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I am from her team but not sure if there is any independent source which can confirm the same. Even her DOB is wrong and we have copy of the original one if that helps.--Merockys (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without sources, there's little we can do. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing to clear backlog. The template has instructions for reactivating should you wish to do so. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have her official website as www.veenamalikofficial.com which can be confirmed from her twitter account https://twitter.com/iVeenaMalik as well as her old official website veenamalik.com.pk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merockys (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looks like the competing "official" pages are down or redirect now. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Punjabi Movie[edit]

Veena Malik has also acted in an Indian Punjabi Movie named "Pind di Kudi" in 2005.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pind_Di_Kurhi_(2005_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charanjaitu (talk • contribs) 07:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singer[edit]

 Done

We can add that she is also a singer in the main bio. Its already mentioned that she released her first single 'Drama Queen' in the page itself. Also see the link. http://www.artistaloud.com/artists/Veena-Malik/32939 --Merockys (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead already says she is a singer, but it mistakenly has an upper case S and is missing the comma after it.
It should be:
Veena Malik (Urdu: وينا ملک, born Zahida Malik) is a Pakistani actress, model, singer, and comedienne.
--76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 May 2013[edit]

Veena Malik Father name is Muhammad Aslam belonging to district Bhakkar village Inayat Abad. He still have his regular to that village. Muhammad Aslam is retired from army. He has been working as driver (Pakistan Army Rahim Yar Khan Cantt. 1993) Altafkhokher (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You need to propose the exact content you wish to be added, indicating precisely what should be added or changed, and provide reliable sources to support your proposal. Thanks. Begoon talk 10:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Veena has not acted or scripted to do so in any kollywood (tamil) movies. But she has in tollywood (telegu). You might want to change that on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.236.109 (talk • contribs) 20:03, November 6, 2013

Does she have an official website?[edit]

http://www.veenamalik.com.pk doesn't seem to be run by her. I don't know who is running it, nor what relationship they have with her. Any ideas?

http://www.veenamalikkhan.com seems a bit more legit, but still seems to be a site run for her rather than by her. Should we link this as her official website? --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019[edit]

I am from PR team of Veena Malik and we want wikipedia to change the main picture of article, let us know how can we submit new photo? 39.41.26.255 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submit it here and other editors can determine whether there is consensus for inclusion (or lack thereof). El_C 16:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How can I submit here? I didn't find any option to upload image file? Should I upload picture on google drive and paste the link here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.26.255 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, please see WP:UPLOAD. El_C 16:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just visited the page you mentioned, and created an account as well but now it's saying my account should be verified first, so can you or someone else upload picture on our behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzentpr (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked your account because your username appears to violate our username guidelines. You can create an account that indicates your name and what company you work for, like "Jim at Muzent" but you can't create a blanket account that could be used by multiple people at that organisation. Feel free to remedy this if you like. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay got, thanks for letting me know about the username policy, but please also let me know how can I request someone to upload photo on wikipedia on our behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.26.255 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Files for upload. El_C 17:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's uploading a photo on your behalf. Also, be sure that the copyright status of that image is clear. You can't pull images from the internet. If you physically held the camera and took the photo yourself, then you can call it your own work. If the photo is licensed to the Creative Commons the way some people on Flickr do it, that's an option as well. Note also that you still need WP:CONSENSUS to change the image, as Wikipedia is not a shill for public relations or any other form of advertising. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now I can understand, however I have uploaded the image on wikimedia commons and yes the copyright status of the image is clear and we hold all rights of the image and that Image is not uploaded anywhere else on internet. Now if I talk about changing image then I know wikipedia is not a place for any kind of advertising or anything relevant to this but as we are managing Veena Malik and she has some issues with the picture which is currently being used on wikipedia that's the reason we want it to be changed. Here is the picture which needs to be added as featured image on wikiped page of veena malik. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Veena_Malik_Latest_Pic.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.20.191 (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and switched the images; that previous image was not very good. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021[edit]

Under ‘Controversy’

The May 2021 Adolf Hitler quote/misquote is not considered ‘controversial’, it is a grossly anti-Semitic endorsement of genocide. The wording needs to be reworded to accurately reflect this. 2607:FEA8:3DE1:CF00:5C6A:6F2:5A96:DD34 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 Twitter comment[edit]

While the reference from TheWrap is better, I think the incident falls outside of what would be expected in an encyclopedia article on her. If there's better coverage in the future, we can revisit it. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be using any refs from foxnews.com given the political nature of this issue. While The Independent is a better source, their specific coverage is poor, and looks like more WP:NOTNEWS.

TheWrap ref still seems the best by far. --Hipal (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this topic falls under sanctions per multiple ArbCom decisions. --Hipal (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just voice my opinion, I believe this controversy deserves at least some mention. I've read the relevant guidelines before and I'll read them again to be sure. And of course I won't add anything in without consensus on here. Also, there might be better sources in other languages but I haven't checked. Maybe in Urdu, or Arabic or Hebrew. Erinius (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've haven't paid much attention to situations where "celebrity X said Y on twitter, and some people were shocked..." actually get to a noticeboard, but I believe they usually get rejected for the reasons I've already suggested: NOT (NOTNEWS, NOTSCANDAL, BATTLE), POV, OR. --Hipal (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


There are well proven articles about her grossly anti-Semitic tweet, which even include screenshots. The sources (The Independent and Fox.news) are valid according to Wikipedia policy and used as reference throughout the wiki in thousand of other articles. The Independent article contains proof in the form of screenshots. The sources are varied geographically and ideologically, so there should be no bias controversy there (by academic standards). That she posted grossly anti-Semitic material is a fact and something of public interest, it must be on the page at least in the controversy section. People cancelling these facts should explain themselves and potentially disclose any bias/conflict of interest. Appioverdi (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC and follow WP:TALK.
Did you look at the comments above? --Hipal (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hoping that it will move us forward quickly: While there's no need for a formal edit request, something similar that identifies changes to article content with references is always a good way to work out specifics. --Hipal (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say this just looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to refuse to include this, as Wikipedia thrives on sections of non-PC social media posts by white celebrities. See Gina Carano, section "Weeks later, after facing calls from some fans to specify her preferred gender pronouns in her Twitter bio,[71][72] she added "beep/bop/boop" to it. Many interpreted this as mocking the practice, leading to accusations of transphobia. She later removed the words from her profile, saying that Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal had helped her "understand why people were putting [pronouns] in their bios."[5][73][74]" It's scandal-mongering and news tidbits to include a Pakistani actress saying that Jews should die, but it's a mega big deal that a white American actress wrote "beep/bop/boop". Here's the Malik story brought up again in The Week [13] and here it is in the Pakistani media too [14]. I couldn't give a damn about either side in the current conflict, so I'm not coming here as an Israel fan, but let's have some bloody consistency on what's notable and what's WP:NOTNEWS, because it seems that some Wikipedia users are saying WP:NOTNEWS when they really mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the discussion. Immediately choosing to focus on editor's behavior seems a poor way to start.
As far as Gina Carano, WP:OSE.
Thanks for the two new references. I'd say they're similar quality as the article from TheWrap. A bit of churnalism, both. As I said, propose a change. --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The latest attempt to add content on this topic used what appear to be inferior references. --Hipal (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WION ref seems slightly worse than the TheWrap ref, and the brief RSN discussions suggest there are problems with the publisher. --Hipal (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, why did you remove The Independent reference? There's nothing wrong with it. Anna (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be WP:FOLLOWING, but I believe the comments above at least partially answer your question. If you here to help with this dispute, please indicate you have read the comments above. --Hipal (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My question is in reference to Hipal's comment to "inferior references". My question is why the Independent source is rejected. As far as I can see you didn't give a reason in the edit summary or on the talk page. I understand you want to gain consensus on the talk page, so am asking for more details. Anna (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like FOLLOWING to me and IDHT.
See my first two comments in this discussion and my response to Erinius.
Let's not waste further time here. No one has proposed a change to the article content, let alone one that addresses the policies mentioned above. BLP requires high-quality sources and strict adherence to all content policies. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Aurat March is serious about helping women or not, Veena Malik seems serious about commenting about it and Pakistani media serious in covering Veena Malik's seriousness on Aurat March.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@USaamo: you feel I do not cover criticism of Aurat March. I had covered criticism in this article also but was reverted. Now here are more refs for criticism from Veena Malik if you are in favour of covering but you will need to negotiate a consensus with User:Hipal

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that those refs convey much beyond that Malik got some publicity for an interview where she said made controversial statements. The entertainment press tends to be a poor sources of references in general, and these pieces appear to be typical WP:NOT. --Hipal (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too insistent but would like to share following opinion of mine.
I understand your wish to trade cautiously, entertainment industry in general and people initiating themselves in controversies and 'the gossip media'.
It is also true that in certain defence, political aspects specially about international relation Pakistani media can be very much under state and military pressures.
Same time over the years Daily Times and The Express Tribune are known to be fairly responsible outlets. In fact latest Newyork Times news report about Aurat March has misreported certain aspects. IMHO basically rather than distributing stereotyped certificates to media, as an encyclopedist how much our eyes are open also matters.
Before my previous edit too I had taken help of co academician to cross check secondary source details with primary source. But when the lady repeats her rhetoric second time and responsible media takes note of the same IMHO information sounds worthy enough to take encyclopedic note, if we are willing to do so.
As such having Aurat March related quotes of Veena Malik in her article is not too important to us on one hand. The other side of the coin is most of credible English language media in Pakistan takes notes of liberal feminist activity. Same time usually they avoid same amount of media exposure to conservative views since like us progressive media considers conservative opinions to be regressive. (Though conservative views in Pakistan occupy maximum space in smaller outlets of Urdu language media and social media.) But as far as Wikipedia is concerned practical availability of conservative views through media acceptable to WP users is very less. Then some users feel we are not giving reasonable space to conservative views. So when I see some criticism and conservative view coming in relatively responsible press like Tribune can be a good chance to achieve some level of coverage to conservative views.
Same time I am not too insistent as said earlier.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First line[edit]

“Veena Malik tum badmash orat ho” - translate or revert please. ELSchissel (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC) ELSchissel (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veena_Malik&oldid=1204771886"