Talk:Shilpa Shetty/Archive 1

message: Has she had a surgical operation on her nose - viz a 'bob'? It looks very different both in profile and from the front to the one she had in her early 'film' apearance - much more 'Westernised'. Reference required.
A quick input:
Shilpa Shetty was NOT born in Tamilnadu, she is NOT a Tamilian. She was born in Mangalore, Karnataka!.
You say she is a black belt in Karate  - was made up to make her appear multi-faceted for film work, but she isn't - ask her to chop a breeze block on live tv, and unless its a stage prop thats already sawn thru, she wont be able to do it - its like all these languages she is supposedly fluent in too - utter lies I'm afraid - 
I removed that section until it can be replaced by one with verifiable references. After the anon described her supposed current boyfriend as "future business tycoon", I realized that this could just be some deranged fan inserting himself as her date. Fans have done this in other Indian cinema articles. Zora 11:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal life

message: Well I did my thing as best as I could. Feel free to improve on it further, I've left some tips in the To-Do list about things that I couldn't do tonight. I'll probably be back to writeup all that stuff but hey, we see how it goes.
One thing I can't figure out is that dratted contents menu, it just won't move. Figured it out, it's hanging off that Cleanup Taskforce tag. Ekantik talk 06:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do

message: Thanks to all editors who have been updating the page according to Shilpa's entrance into Celebraty Big Brother, but could I also ask everyone to pay attention to WP:MOS? The recent edits are good but the information is jumbled up. For example, the Awards section needs to be placed further down and above the Filmography section.
As an aside, the Mafia Links controversy is very long and I'll consider making a separate article for that, leaving just a brief description of it on this page. Anyway thanks very much. Ekantik talk 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Brother Edits

message: Please, I've put a lot of work into this article (smartening up especially for the Big Brother entry) and I'd really appreciate if editors did not remove information willy-nilly that effort was put in to find. This is what the article looked like before I started working on it, and I'm sure everyone will agree that it has been much improved. Not wanting to blow my own trumpet but I was responsible for the majority of the improvement, running around researching sources, etc. So please take the time to consider if your removal of information is meant to benefit the article. I've already got the article semi-protected because of malicious vandalism.
As for Big Brother, I'm perfectly aware that whatever she does on "Day 2" (and the rest of her time for that matter) is superficial for the article, but bear in mind that this particular section has been tagged as current event with rapidly changing information. The idea is to gradually  build up the section so that a complete record (with full references) will be kept to describe her time in Big Brother and the notable incidents thereof. So again, please, take the time to consider if your removal of information is helping or harming this article in the long run. Thanks. Ekantik talk 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! There's a huge amount of vandalism going on at the moment on the pages of all the BB contestants; I've watchlisted this page, and I'll keep an eye on your edits if I need to revert anything else. Squeezeweasel 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Brother Information

message: I don't think that the screenshot of her in Big Brother is very good quality, but it's worth keeping until a better variation can be found. I'm going to revert back to the smarter Romanov picture and move the BB picture down into the appropriate section. It's really a horrible picture which may be deleted soon since it has a delete tag on it anyway. Ekantik talk 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need two image; one is more than enough.  A bad quality image of Shetty sitting in a chair doesn't improve the article at all.  J Di talk 14:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. But I'll keep my eyes open for a good shot, as I'm already doing. Feel free to remove it if you like, although there's no restrictions on image use as such (providing they don't take over the whole place obviously). Soon I'm gonna work on expanding the career section. Whaddya know, this might be a feature article someday! Ekantik talk 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already removed it twice, I'm not removing it again.  Also, fair use images should not be used in excess and their use should not violate the fair use criteria.  J Di talk 15:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see, the edit history only shows you removing it once so I didn't know. Ekantik talk 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Picture

message: I think that standard practice is chronological order, not anti-chronological orders, as is used now among others for awards and filmography. Andries 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. talkGiler S 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological order

message: Was she ever as big as Angelina Jolie? or is it just nonsense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.153.117.134 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reference was "Indian Angelina Jolie" though I can't remember who said it, Davina/Big Brother or Shilpa herself. However, she is definitely a Bollywood star. Ekantik talk 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On Big Brother Shilpa said that she had been compared in India to Angelina Jolie because of an action movie she had made. 84.43.29.110 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angelina Jolie? 

message: "After Shetty had accidentally undercooked a chicken" - can a citation be provided that it was accidental and the text needs NPOVing. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a citation be provided that it wasn't accidental??? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" - dubious tag removed. Bassophile 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: why does someone who represents PETA have anything to do with cooking a chicken? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.225.130.194 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are all people who are a member of PETA veggies??? Bassophile 10:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious tripe 

message: Thankyou for deleting the 'Racist Controversy' article, as there was no pont in adding it, but the Bigrother article is highly acceptable -Zora —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.189.251 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is someone adding my name to an anonIP post? Zora 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thankyou 

message: Suggestions: In the racism controversy section, where it says she speculated that she was the victim of racism, could you write "Shetty for the first time speculated that she may be the victim of racism" and then put what she actually said to the other housemate: "It is, in a way, I'm telling you." It has been misquoted in a lot of areas and should be cleared up. Also, when you write "later denied it," it makes it sound like she denied she speculated at all which isn't what she did. She acknowledged she's picked up a vibe, based on what's been said to her face, but appears (at time of writing) not to want to use the word "racist". ShillShell 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why I find difficult to understand is, why is every little detail about the racist incidents we saw on television listed on the page there? Is it appropriate for this page? Why not take it to the UK Bigbrother page? Tragicomedian 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those are only allegations now. BBC reports confirms the comments, but until it is declared by a competent authority, we cannot term any person as a racist, can we? Tragicomedian 09:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume Good faith. Shetty has been in the diary room to clarify things the way she sees them at the time of writing. Of course, she doesn't have the "benefit" of knowing all the things that have been said behind her back like viewers do. Therefore she knows not what viewers have seen, but from her take on it at this time she has appeared willing to give one of the bullies "the benefit of the doubt." ShillShell 09:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did I not assume good faith. I have a right to discuss here, don't I? :) We can only go as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Also we should not put libel against people on this website, without it being confirmed. See WP:LIVING. Tragicomedian 09:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested the changes above in light of events up to the time of writing. ShillShell 09:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the editprotected tag as the edit appears to no longer be required please clarify and relist if its needed. Gnangarra 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: --Freetown 02:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you list the things you say were "offensive" that could also "neutralise the racism controversy section on the article if included" and then we can see if they can be included? ShillShell 16:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The only things I recall her saying was, after being shouted and yelled at with profanities, Shetty said "You need some elocution lessons" and "I don't use that kind of language." After more vitriol against her, Shetty finally said "You know what, your claim to fame is this, good for you." I think these statements can and should be included as they were A) Advisory and B) Shilpa defending herself with dignity. Not sure whether the section is perhaps the right one though. Perhaps, as suggested in a previous post, it could go on an article more specific to this series of Celebrity Big Brother, perhaps in a section specific to this argument. ShillShell 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Such an article is now created.  It is Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy.  Trixovator 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: White Trash is a US colloquialism which historically refers to a subset of society in certain areas of the south US. It's like the US version of Chav. Chav isn't racist. Just 'cos the phrase White trash contains a colour, doesn't make it racist. Bassophile 10:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well this is not the place to discuss the mechanics of what took place, sorry. There 
are other forums for that. As for YouTube, unfortunately Wikipedia could perhaps not allow such material because - apart from it being original research - the clips are in all likelihood a copyright violation of the CBB show and could not be linked to from this page either. Ekantik talk 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, I'm currently involve din trying to get a separate article to discuss this issue (it deserves a separate article) so that would be the proper place to discuss it. With reference to WP:RS of course. Ekantik talk 05:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think the racism section is very neutral. 

message: The article mentions that Shilpa Shetty lives in the center of the "Hindu" language film industry. There is nothing called the "Hindu" language. It's the Hindi language. Please fix this egregious mistake which makes Wikipedia look clueless about the languages spoken in other parts of the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.248.102.82 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 January 2007  (UTC)
:Done. Static Universe 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is nothing called a Hindu language 

message: I was going to change the "United Sprits signs Shilpa Shetty for Romanov vodka" link to "United Spirits signs Shilpa Shetty for Romanov vodka" but the page in question uses both "sprits" and "spirits". Hmm...138.243.129.4 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well obviously the correct word must be used: spirits. Hope that helps. Ekantik talk 05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling mistake? 

message: this discussion page is jus too long- alot of stuff from Ekantik 
please deleate some stuff- to much to read and handele sorry!!snookums —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.161.39 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: to long

message: I was checking the edits on this page and found that her birthplace was changed from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. If someone could provide a source, that'd be nice. Xiner (talk, email) 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll certainly try. I saw it sometime ago but it may have been unwittingly removed, but I'll try to find it. Ekantik talk 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know Indian geography 

message: I'm afraid that I am going to strongly oppose any unjustified removals of the text. Wikipedia is an ongoing project and things need to be clarified rather than removed outright. I agree that since I last made my major edits, various mistakes and poor writing has crept in, and I am currently unable to keep a close watch and edit this article due to internet connection problems at home. When these are resolved I will certainly be back to update this article with any new information.
In the meantime, it should be noted that content removal (especially unjustified) can be viewed as vandalism. The only form of content removal that is allowed to take place regards unsourced controversial information as per WP:BLP. If any editor has a problem with the information on this article, they can rewrite it or clarify it if they can, not remove it. What kind of editing is that?
And yes, I also agree that some of this article has fallen into a poor state from how I left it due to irresponsible editing by other editors (connected to the Big Brother controversy). I have already made a complete subpage and will restore this information when I get back. I do not appreciate those "weasel word" templates being slammed just because some editor wants to insert his POV into the article. The racism section is going to be hoisted off into a main article anyway (as I've been saying repeatedly on this talk page) so it matters little. But the one thing I would like all editors to abide by is that unjustified removal of content should not be done. Ekantik talk 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching Celebrity Big Brother but I have not touched that section because frankly I think it is a huge mess. As for justifying my recent edits then here goes: I think the intro of the article was too long and was not needed. Wikipedia does not need a long intro to explain her occupation etc, especially when we have the rest of the article to explain this. -- Pa7 17:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Pa7, thank you, looks like we were both writing at the same time resulting in an edit conflict! :) Anyway I wanted to say that if you noticed, you'll see that I didn't just restore the content, I rewrote it to make more sense and relate to the rest of the article. Please do not remove content without seriously considering if such removal is warranted, bearing in mind that the stuff in this article is going to be built upon. Also, WP:LEAD should be read through as is it going to be built upon. I'd appreciate if you or other editors did not remove this content because more is going to be added and the entire section rewritten. I'd appreciate it if you could be patient and let the work be done, thanks. I appreciate your passion for editing nevertheless. Ekantik talk 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:LEAD, the intro paragraph is meant to be a summary of stuff already said in the article. The idea is that the intro is a summary of the page contents which are expanded later in the article itself. Hence, if we include a sentence about Big Brother racism in the lead, this is expanded upon later in the article. I hope this is clarified, thanks. Ekantik talk 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrites

message: I hope editors are aware that this article appeared In The News recently. See the 'Major Achievements' section of my userpage for more details. Ekantik talk 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In The News

message: Much as I sympathis with your patriotic feelings, Shilpa was NOT born in Karnataka but in Tamil Nadu. There is a difference between being born somewhere and coming from somewhere else. There is even a reference included in the 'Background' section to support this, so please stop adding this erroneous information into the article. Thanks. Ekantik talk 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Born in Tamil Nadu or Karnataka?

message: Whew! It's quite a task trying to cleanup this article especially the racism section. I'm aware that there is repetition of some things currently but this will soon be removed. I've done the best I could but it is still 'unfinished as it is pretty late here, so please bear with me while the cleanup continues tomorrow because important information needs to be split off into separate articles. Thanks. Ekantik talk 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism cleanup

message: My comments on the Big Brother house were taken out of context. People who know the real me will understand I'm no racist.
--Danielle Lloyd 11:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note: User:Danielle Lloyd has since been blocked. --Dreaded Walrus 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shilpa Shetty 

message: With a quick glance over the article, I think it could reach GA status. Look over the GA criteria, add a fair use rationale to any images that require it, and fix any citation needed tags before nominating. Good work so far and I hope it passes. --Nehrams2020 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for noticing. I put a lot of work into the article but I still think some of the controversy information (specifically about the "Praful Sarees" affair) could be split off into a separate article. One of the images has bene released under the GFDL license and another could use a FU Rationale. But thanks very much for your pointer, I'll definitely look into nominating this article for GA-status soon. Ekantik talk 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Ekantik. I've taken a look at the images as you requested. , the first pic here, does not need a fair use rationale, because the CC-BY-SA-2.0 is a free license compatible with the GFDL. The second pic, , has been released under the GFDL, which surprised me, but it was Commons administrator Jkelly who uploaded it so I trust that it has been negotiated with PETA already; no need for a fair use rationale there either. The third image, :Image:BBHousemates.jpg, does need a fair use rationale, however, I am not sure yet that a legal fair use rationale can be devised that would let it be used in this article. Can you tell me what exactly is occurring in this scene with the four of them on the couch? — coelacan — 01:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA potential

message: I think the film Dus should be included in her filmography as she did appear in it even if it did not release or was never finished. I had added it in before but it was removed. Plus the article has enough info on it to be able to be include it in her filmography list. If it was just a very brief article with very little info then I would understand it not being included but I just found an official website related to the film which has a lot of info on the film and even has a screenshot of her appearance which can be seen here Shakirfan 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1997 film Dus

message: Article has a trivia section which has been tagged since April 17, a request for expansion tag in the first section, the first two sections contains several cn tags, and the lead is weak—for instance her height, which is essentially trivia, is mentioned (see WP:Lead). The good news is there are no other actors/actresses in the GAC queue, so once these are addressed the article can go right back to the front of the line. Quadzilla99 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: While ref 69 on tbe  BBC site states that Jade said Shipa should get back to the slums she never actually said that. Tbe BBC are wrong. On the show itself (sorry but someone would need to look at the tapes, maybe youtube have the evidence?) Jade actually said something like "you need day in the slums". What she was stating was that she should see how the poor lead their lives before trying to patronise Jade and others for behaving in a working class manner.
She never stated that Shilpa came from the slums or should return there.
This has been widely inaccurately quoted.
Here is the youtube clip of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSvp5JJO4s
Also Jade herself expanded on this:
from 4.00 onwards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjwu418sYNM
Chulcoop 20:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the slums

message: I just wanted to mention here that I reorganised the references, because the diff looks a bit odd and could be mistaken for vandalism if someone glanced at it quickly.
Seraphim Whipp 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reflist is broken. Someone please fix it. @pple 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References