Talk:Shilpa Shetty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Shilpa Shetty was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 6, 2007
This is not a forum! This is not a forum for discussing Shilpa Shetty.
Any such messages will be deleted.
To-do list for Shilpa Shetty: edit · history · watch · refresh

#Writeup underworld links [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
Op-eds?: [13] [14]
#Writeup Rediff story [15]

  1. Expand career and background sections!
  2. Writeup Chalchitra story [16] (find original IANS story)
  3. Writeup SAWF stuff [17]
  4. Data mining: Rediff, Times, TOI article, Sunday Mirror, Daily Mail, BBC Profile articles
Priority 4  
Shilpa Shetty was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 22, 2007


Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Tulu Nadu

She was born in Tulu Nadu not Tamil Nadu fix this up right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.134.168 (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

This article has quite a few problems

  • Biggest is undue weight. Acting is only about 20% and we have more on the mafia thing just by itself and tons and tons about a stupid reality TV show. The account is also heavily focussed on 2006-07 incidents.
  • Lead needs to be bigger, it is very small compared to the body.
  • Refs need to be filled out with dates of publication, author where applicable
  • Refs need to be formatted consistently. The date format is not consistent
  • Career needs to discuss what type of an actresss she is. At the moement it is mainly just a list of films and results. There is nothing about style.
  • Home viewer polls should not be included. They can be rorted by ppl voting over and over again.
  • The awards list needs to have proper references not just inline links.
  • POV about "hits" - that is the POV of the guy who made the website. Some films made little money but were "hits" and some made more money but were "flops" - there was no objective measure in this, simply quote the takings or quote a commentator
  • Also, in the first paragraph of the career, eg, there are only a few stats and noms that are reffed. The other stuff is unreffed.
  • "critics consider as her best performance so far" - there was only one critic there!
  • Some one line sentences need to be mreged. some short parts unreffed
  • Love info gossip should not really be in the middle of the career info.
  • To be honest, I don't think the ToI should be used as a reference for anything serious, and that includes mafia allegations. eg, see User:Blnguyen/Times of India

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and POV

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This section is intrisicly to Pro-Shetty and anti-Goody for the resons lised below-

'During her time in Celebrity Big Brother, Shetty was allegedly a target of racism and bullying by other housemates, chiefly by Jade Goody, Jo O'Meara and Danielle Lloyd.[68] After mocking the east London dialect of Jade Goody's mother, who mis-pronounced her name as 'Shiwpa', Shetty was mocked for her Indian accent and was branded as "The Indian" and a "dog". Disparaging conversations took place among the other housemates about Indian eating habits, and Shetty's cooking was criticised for being the cause of diarrhea for O'Meara.[69] After Shetty attempted to dispose of left-over chicken soup down the toilet and caused a blockage, Jack Tweed suggested that she should pick the bones out with her teeth[69] and allegedly referred to her as a "fucking Paki"[70] although show producers denied this and stated that the word used was "cunt".[71][72] During a fierce argument, Goody told Shetty that she needed to "spend a day in the slums", although the media falsely reported this as "go back to the slums".[73] Claiming that she did not know Shilpa's surname, Jade referred to her as "Shilpa Fuckawallah", "Shilpa Durupa", and "Shilpa Poppadom", later claiming that they were non-racist references to Indian food.[74][75] Lloyd had opined that Shetty's English-speaking skills were lacking and verbally indicated her desire that Shetty would "fuck off home".[76] Shetty had been reduced to tears on several occasions, confiding to fellow housemate Ian Watkins: "I feel like I'm losing my dignity."[69]'

1/ Accent mocking is only horse-play and jokeing.

2/"The Indian" was only used in place of her name after thay fogot it. If She had been an Afro', the she could have just as ealy been called the 'black'.

3/Poppadom was only a joke and a gag.

4/"Cunt", "dog" "Paki", and "Fuckwala" were going to far!

5/ Shipla can't help cooking in an indian styel and Jo's stomach had a alergic reaction (not racist reaction)to it that lead to the vommiting/diorreah insodent!

6/Jade's mother's London accsent was mocked to.--Granola lips (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Realy?!--86.25.52.177 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The context matters. Jade's mum's accent was mocked when everybody was sitting around having a laugh about it - Shilpa's accent was mocked behind her back as a deliberate insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.186.169 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All pre-November 6th stuff was archive.--86.25.52.177 (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, all of us perfectly know that there is no bias. These are very well referenced claims. The topic was immensely talked about everywhere in the press, and the racism controversy was hugely publicised.
NOBODY was joking. Jade was sharply criticising and insulting her. YOUR claims above are not referenced. The claims on the article are very well referenced verbatim; your personal opinions do not matter. The truth, what was publishet, what was in the newspapers -- that's what matters. Next time you're adding something to the article, please add references. Shahid • Talk2me 11:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased article

The article is all about Shilpa Shetty did this.. did that.. blah.. blah.. Little is mentioned about the fact that apart from Dhadkan and Life.. In a metro, all her films have failed miserably at the box-office and even if some other films starring Shetty have done well, she didn't have a major role in those films. Her commercial failure was the main reason why she went for Big Brother in the first place. You won't find mainstream actresses like Rani Mukherjee, Preity Zinta or Aishwarya starring in such vulgar shows to gain popularity. I have elaborated more on the commercial performance of some of her films to represent both sides of the coin. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree, but it's not really relevant to the article, and it's unreferenced. Sorry to say that but I had to disagree with your edits. Yeh, I know that Shilpa was not successful before, but here are the reasons:
  • "Failed miserably" - it's an encyclopedia. How can you write this??
  • Phir Milenge failed but it has nothing to do with the fact that her performance was hugely acclaimed, and I'm not saying this now, after big brother; but because at that time, every major newspaper was hugely favourable. Her performance earned her nominations everywhere etc. The film is more an arty film rather than a commercial one; we are definitely not forced to add box office figures for every possible film
  • desifans, smashits, etc, are unreliable blogs, and we can't use them.
  • Compared to her previous years, 2004 is a good year. Garv did moderately well, while Phir Milenge was super acclaimed.
Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 11:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Instead of failed miserably, can write failed commercially.
  • Garv did below average business[18] while Phir Milenge was a commercial failure[19]. Garv was not critically acclaimed. Therefore, saying 2004 was a mixed year is apt.
  • There are plenty of other reliable sources.
  • What do u mean by Super acclaimed?
Adding commercial status of films is important. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Garv WAS well received by critics, although Salman received most of the critics' praise, it was a critical success. Phir Milenge was super acclaimed. Shetty's performance was aplauded, and that's what matters. Again I say, compared to the body of her previous work, it is considered a good year for her.
Adding commercial status is OK but not necessarily needed in every film. I want this bit to be clear. The matter in Phir Milenge's case is that it was very well received so I guess it's fine. It wasn't expected to make an amazing box offcie impact, but raise some AIDS awareness among Indians, and Shilpa performaed her part very well IMO. So box office figures in this case are purely unneeded and the readers are clever enough to get that if the box office status isn't mentioned, so the film is probably a failure in that context. See Shabana Azmi page for example. Nobody even mentions box office figures, for the simple fact that it doesn't matter. Films like Arth and Masoom are considered landmarks. Umrao Jaan is another example of a film that has no box office collections here, and nobody knows, and nobody doesn't even care and doesn't question. See also FA articles, like Jolie. You will see that not every film is accompanied by box office result.
Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 07:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Tell me a one noted critic who acclaimed Garv or for that matter, praised Shilpa's perfomance. You just keep making claims (ex. Garv WAS well received by critics) w/o backing them. I agree that adding commercial aspect to Phir Milenge is not required but for films like Garv, Auto Shankar and Fareb, which are commercial films, it is necessary. And please, don't even think of comparing Shilpa to Shabana Azmi. You wouldn't see the latter in horrible films like Auto Shankar or vulgar shows like Big Brother. Just curious, why did you remove reference to Auto Shankar? I smell bias. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear friend, I'm now removing every unreliable site. Desifans/smashits are unreliable. I'm not a fan of Shilpa at all, though I do think that she's a good and underrated actress. My claims are not baseless, I can prove them. Haven't seen Autho Shankar. Make your edits. I'll check and comment. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming article ownership but since I was the editor who made the most contributions to this article, I thought I'd weigh in on this discussion. (And yes, I'm back on Wikipedia recently and not happy with certain things that have been going on.) Regarding the Garv/Phir Milenge discussion, Shahid is right in that sites such as desifans/smashits etc are unreliable. We had a discussion about this a long time ago on the WP:INCINE board and the sad fact is that it is extremely difficult to find reliable sources that report a film's commercial success. That said, articles on Indian actors should not go into long-winded discussions over whether a film was a hit or a flop, there are more to films than their status as hits or flops. Phir Milenge was acclaimed because it dealt with a taboo topic such as AIDS, I'm not sure about Garv as I have neither heard about it nor seen the movie. And by the way, are there any noted Indian film critics who publish their views in reliable sources? Until there is one, it is next-to-useless in asking for a noted critic who acclaimed Garv. This is the problem with Indian films and Bollywood in general, their reportage is highly gossipy and thus highly unreliable for Wikipedia. However, articles from Stardust/Cineblitz/Filmfare can be used with discretion and with the proviso that the article is neutral in tone and not "gossipy". That's it for now. Ekantik talk 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanov Vodka

Regarding this edit, what follows is a record of the discussion that took place on the talk-pages of connected editors:

As for Romanov Vodka, I can't get the reason to mentioning it. Actors endorse numerous products every year. Unless there is some controversy behind it, something that is genuinely notable, a description of her work (it only states that she was chosen) -- it's non-notable. You also can't compare it to PETA and HIV drives, you know.

It might also be a good idea to rename 'commitments' to something more descriptive. The term "commitments" could have a pretty wide range of meanings. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Yes, I'll surely get around to re-editing the Shilpa Shetty article and bring it up to GA and FA-class standard.
About Romanov Vodka, it is Wikipedia convention to mention people's commercial endorsements. I.e: there is no reason why such endorsements cannot be mentioned. It is also not a very good practice to remove sourced/referenced information, as it may be done with good intentions but it can also be construed as vandalism. I'm aware that there has been a culture at WP:INCINE to remove mentions of commercial endorsements moved by certain editors. Shahid, this is wrong. I am telling you this because I can see from your contribs list that you are a very active contributor to Bollywood-oriented articles and it is very good that you are so enthusiastic. But unfortunately we have been noticing for a long time that the WP:INCINE project has no real direction or formal/informal standard for articles. Hopefully this will change in the near future because I plan to set some things in motion later this month when I will have more time.
Anyway, forgive my rambling. Back to the topic, it is ok for Wikipedia to list and detail any person's commercial endorsements. For example, Shilpa Shetty has recently launched her own perfume, cookery book and other things as a direct result of the Big Brother controversy so this will have to be mentioned. Wikipedia even has entire articles dedicated to a person's merchandise, for example Britney Spears.
So if you don't mind, I'm going to re-insert the Romanov Vodka information and probably enlarge the article with more information, sourced and referenced of course. Hope you're well. Ekantik talk 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again! I'm sorry, but I disagree with you in that particular case. I have absolutely no problem with mentioning endorsements of actors, as long as they are notable. Launching a new perfume is great and definitely can be mentioned, but Vodka? I can't understand the matter of making a whole section for endorsement for Vodka, when actually nothing regarding her actual work there is mentioned.
Well, the Britney Spears article is not a good template for inspiration. It has recently failed an FAC. And even if you want to do the same, remember that while her article presents numerous endorsements, you have a whole section dedicated to only one. Have a look at some FAs and you will see that there are no such mentions. But still, I repeat, I have no problem with endorsements, but there must be some significance to it. As I said above, unless there is some controversy behind it, something that is genuinely notable, a description of her work -- it's non-notable. So this one is clearly non-notable. Launching her own perfume is notable, but an endorsement for some vodka, one of thousands endorsements she may have done, is...
A BLP should provide biographical information; a new own perfume is great, and endorsements are great only for one of the above-mentioned reasons, but mentioning one of many endorsements in one section is definitely not an encyclopedic stuff. Have you seen an encyclopedia entry for some actor mentioning something of the sort? PETA and HIV drives are great causes, part of her humanitarian work, therefore very notable, as they constitute a part of her very biography.
As for "It is also not a very good practice to remove sourced/referenced information, as it may be done with good intentions but it can also be construed as vandalism." - Just to note, it doesn't apply to established editors who have been working on an article, and although I immesely appreciate your terrific work on this article, I have full right (and equal to yours) to edit this article. We better try to expand her brief career section, rather than adding things to make the article longer. I have expanded her career section, her lead, fought vandalism down the months, and impolite editors on the talk page as well; so I also can remove something which is non-notable. I'm not going to remove it now, I hope you get the matter and do it for yourself. I don't want an edit war. If you still disagree, we'll take it to some noticeboard or a better idea will be to turn to some editors, whom I met on FACs and who constantly vote on FACs, for their opinion. Then it will get clear. In fact, I believe, we both are trying to improve the article.
My best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 09:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello again.
You said: "Hi again! I'm sorry, but I disagree with you in that particular case. I have absolutely no problem with mentioning endorsements of actors, as long as they are notable. Launching a new perfume is great and definitely can be mentioned, but Vodka? I can't understand the matter of making a whole section for endorsement for Vodka, when actually nothing regarding her actual work there is mentioned."
Well it is only a short paragraph within a section about her other commitments away from filming and acting, not a "whole section". Perhaps you need to define "notability" in this case. WP:NOTE doesn't preclude the inclusion of commercial endorsements so long as it has been reported by verifiable and reliable sources. Personally I cannot understand why you draw a difference between perfume and vodka, what's the difference? They are both commercial products she is endorsing. And there is much more she has endorsed that needs to be catalogued, verified, and included. Ditto for all other actors. I don't understand what exactly you mean when you say "nothing regarding her actual work is mentioned". Could you please explain what you mean by that? Do you mean there is no information regarding what she has actually done for Romanov Vodka? Well, there is plenty of information, such as the fact that she has done TV and radio advertisements for them, as well as appeared on public advertising billboards and all the other typical brouhaha that goes with advertising a commercial product. Trouble is, none of that can be sourced reliably. :) That is what I was telling you at Talk: Shah Rukh Khan, there is a serious problem with the Indian media in that it doesn't report very much of these things, so no guarantee of reliable sources for Wikipedia. I don't think this requires removal of the information per se though, considering what we do have.
In any case, it is good to see that you don't have a problem with the inclusion of commercial endorsement information for all actors connected with WP:INCINE. :) That is a refreshing change from the attitudes of the old guard of editors who, frankly speaking, had no idea how to write an article.
You said: "Well, the Britney Spears article is not a good template for inspiration. It has recently failed an FAC. And even if you want to do the same, remember that while her article presents numerous endorsements, you have a whole section dedicated to only one. Have a look at some FAs and you will see that there are no such mentions. But still, I repeat, I have no problem with endorsements, but there must be some significance to it. As I said above, unless there is some controversy behind it, something that is genuinely notable, a description of her work -- it's non-notable. So this one is clearly non-notable. Launching her own perfume is notable, but an endorsement for some vodka, one of thousands endorsements she may have done, is..."
Thanks Shahid, but I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know what's notable and what's not. As mentioned earlier, WP:NOTE doesn't preclude any information about commercial endorsements/product launches so long as they have been sourced reputably. I personally don't understand what you mean when you say there must be significance to an endorsement, what do you mean? What is the significance of Beyonce, Pink and Britney Spears all doing the same Pepsi advert? There isn't one, but it is just mentioned that they endorsed it, along with a whole host of other products. (They all have sections for their endorsements too.) There doesn't have to be a controversy behind a product endorsement to get it mentioned on Wikipedia. Where does it say that in WP:NOTE? By the way, I just now found this. If I remember correctly, Xc wanted to create one such page for Hrithik Roshan back when she was a new editor. I don't know what became of that, but I didn't see any problem with it and neither did other editors.
As for FA-class articles, could you show me an example of an FA-article that initially failed FA-requirements because of mentions of product endorsements? I only mentioned Britney Spears because there is a separate article dedicated to her endorsements (since she has done many) and there are other such pages connected with other people. I also couldn't find any mention of the recent failed FAC you made, perhaps you meant the third peer-review?
You said: "A BLP should provide biographical information; a new own perfume is great, and endorsements are great only for one of the above-mentioned reasons, but mentioning one of many endorsements in one section is definitely not an encyclopedic stuff. Have you seen an encyclopedia entry for some actor mentioning something of the sort? PETA and HIV drives are great causes, part of her humanitarian work, therefore very notable, as they constitute a part of her very biography."
Well that was my point. I will be including much more information about her product endorsements either in that section devoted to her commitments, or it may require a new section about her endorsements. Perhaps a new article even, I'm fine either way. The only reason the Romanov Vodka stayed in there for so long was because there was no other place to put it. As you say, it is stupid to create an entire section for just a short paragraph, which is why it happily remained within a section generically describing other commitments apart from Bollywood. So perhaps we may need to create a new section for product endorsements/launches that will include information about Romanov Vodka, perfume, cookery book, etc. Just today I've found out more products that she has brought out, so this is all going to be referenced and included in a new reorganised section for commercial endorsements.
You are correct in noting that Shilpa Shetty is a BLP article. I might further add that it has a stronger priority with WP:BLP than with WP:INCINE. Do you have any experience with BLP articles outside of INCINE or WP:INDIA?
You said: "As for "It is also not a very good practice to remove sourced/referenced information, as it may be done with good intentions but it can also be construed as vandalism." - Just to note, it doesn't apply to established editors who have been working on an article, and although I immesely appreciate your terrific work on this article, I have full right (and equal to yours) to edit this article."
Yes, Shahid, I don't deny that you have a right to edit the article and never disputed that. I remember you were starting out as a newbie editor when I was around last time and I am glad that you have come so far with WP:INCINE and have done a tremendous amount of work. But unfortunately I think that you are wrong about established editors being able to delete referenced information. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia conventions look down on the removal of sourced information as that is taken as a subtraction of the information available on Wikipedia. The only real and justifiable reason for removal of information is if the info is potentially libellous or otherwise defamatory to the subject. Of course if such information must be included, it must be reliably sourced. This is a requirement made directly by Jimbo Wales and WP:BLP happens to be extremely strict in this regard. If you want to remove information because you think it is non-notable, I think it is Wikipedia convention that the burden of proof falls on the deleter to show how the info is non-notable.
You said: "We better try to expand her brief career section, rather than adding things to make the article longer. I have expanded her career section, her lead, fought vandalism down the months, and impolite editors on the talk page as well; so I also can remove something which is non-notable. I'm not going to remove it now, I hope you get the matter and do it for yourself. I don't want an edit war."
That's good, Shahid, because I don't want an edit war either and see no reason why there should be one. By the way, Wikipedia is not paper. :) Discussions about text like this should really follow the Wikipedia BRD procedure. I totally agree with you about expanding the necessary sections. The only reason why I didn't do that myself is because I couldn't find any reliable sources. :) That's why we're back to square one! :) The sad thing is that there just isn't enough information from the Indian media on the Net, especially for actors gone by. I suppose it's something that we have regular news coming through now because of the Internet, and India is slowly waking up to the benefits of having news websites, but what about actors gone by? If you ask me, actors like Raj Kapoor, Shammi Kapoor, Dilip Kumar, Dharmendra, Nargis etc. were the real greats of Indian cinema and their articles should really be something to show off about. Unfortunately there is extremely little printed verifiable information about any of these actors. Even a recent-ish actress like Shilpa Shetty, it is too hard to find any reliable information about her background unless one is prepared to thumb through old issues of Stardust, Cineblitz, Filmfare etc. So this is a problem that we have to figure out a solution for.
You said: "If you still disagree, we'll take it to some noticeboard or a better idea will be to turn to some editors, whom I met on FACs and who constantly vote on FACs, for their opinion. Then it will get clear. In fact, I believe, we both are trying to improve the article."
Yes, of course the improvement of the article is the only thing we have in mind. The only question is how to improve it and with what? I'm afraid I still disagree with the removal of the information although I'm prepared to reorganise it within the auspices of a dedicated section or sub-section devoted to commercial endorsements. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by talking to editors involved with FAC although you can do that if you want, I think it is far too early. I think it is reasonable to bring it upto GA-class first and then think about FA after that. I'm also not too concerned with this whole competition of bringing articles to GA-class and FA-class for the fun of it, as a well-written article doesn't necessarily need a badge. That may be my view, your mileage may vary.
A good place to discuss this issue would be the Village Pump (Policy). You can go ahead and start a discussion there if you want. One such discussion already took place when User:Zora took issue and picked a bone with this same Romanov Vodka information, and she ended up without a leg to stand on. The general consensus was that it is perfectly ok to mention commercial endorsements so long as they have been sourced reliably per WP:NOTE, and it is not necessarily so that such an endorsement should be "significant" by way of controversy or other distinguishing feature. I see no evidence that that consensus has changed. If it did, we wouldn't have such sections or articles for Britney Spears, Beyonce, Jessica Simpson, etc etc. Those articles are only mentioned because they have a significantly large number of editors working on them and are especially prone to partisan edits and/or vandalism.
Anyhow, best regards, Ekantik talk 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If you don't mind, I'll paste this exchange at Talk: Shilpa Shetty since other editors could also register their inputs or be better informed. Ekantik talk 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why should I have a problem with endorsements? Yes, I personally wouldn't like such section in an article I mainly work on, because my opinion of what a BLP (actors) should include and what it shouldn't is firm -- Early life-career-other work (including humanitarian work and even endorsements)-personal life (including controversies)-Media lists (including controversies)-and so forth. That's how we'll have a well-written BLP in the full sense of the word - Biography of a living person.
Now, if you want a section for her endorsements, so first of all, that's how it should be named - endorsements, not Romanov Vodka, and not only a brief mention of that. It is literally silly to have an entire section only for this Vodka. If you really want a section for endorsements, so it's better to include other endorsements too, many of these she has endorsed, and name it "endorsements" - not Romanov Vodka, which is a little part of thousand products she has endorsed.
When I say that I want to consult an editor who regularly votes on FACs, I don't mean that I want to make the article an FA, I mean that I want an opinion of an intelligent editor who knows and understands what the perfect standard for a BLP is. In fact, the article is far from reaching a GA status, let alone FA. I can assure you that if I turn to editors like Sandy, they won't support the existence of a section named Romanov Vodka.
Now, Britney Spears, Beyonce, Jessica Simpson, are not good enough to serve us as rolemodels and your points that "other article has that and that, therefore this article should" are not valid, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. They are full of gossip and data that resembles a gossip magazine at times rather than an encyclopedia. I have always used articles like Jolie, Mariah Carey and other FAs to promote INDICINE articles, but these???
No probs friend, feel free to shift this discussion. Kind regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

General comment I'm not too happy with the idea that articles with a GA- or FA- badge are to be taken as "models" of good writing, for any experienced Wikipedia editor who has been around for a while will know that articles such as Britney Spears etc have an extremely high editorship/viewership and disputative issues tend to have a large impact. By that, I do not mean that GA and FA articles are crap or anything, but I'm not too keen on the idea of holding every article hostage to a particular standard as a Darwikinist concept is prevalent throughout Wikipedia. But yes, Angelina Jolie and Mariah Carey are examples of good writing. The point I was making was that due to such a high reader/editorship, there have been no issues relating to endorsement information on that or any other article, regardless of any controversy etc. surrounding them. Apart from the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay (not a policy or a guideline), this would be an issue of policy but unfortunately I could find no such mention in any of the main or corollary policies.

In any case, I've just found a reliable reference that suggests that there was controversy surrounding Shetty's endorsement of Romanov Vodka that was connected to her time in the Big Brother house. So at the end of the day, this information about Romanov Vodka is notable and is going back in the article but probably get a short mention in the controversy section. :) Ekantik talk 23:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a policy for all intents and purposes. So, in any case, you cannot say "This article has that, so this one should have it too."
Remember that celebs like Britney and the like are always, constantly involved in such things, endorsements and adverstisements. So for their readers, it's almost impossible not to mention that. It's a major part of her work. In our case, Shilpa's career section is one of the shortest articles, so it's actually obvious that we have first to think about expanding this section.
Another note, the controversy of Romanov Vodka also has to be notable, we shouldn't look for different ways to mention this Vodka endorsement.
Please don't forget that the controversy section has to be reduced. It was also the first thing I asked you. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)