Talk:Shefali Shah

Birthdate

I'm not seeing anything consistent from what little I can find. Unless I'm overlooking something, we've one source that alludes to her age, 40 in an article published 24 Oct 2009, making her birthday around 1969. --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, I have used the same reference with the {{birth based on age as of date}} template. KyloRen3 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviews

LA Times GMF old RediffHasratein+awardTVRecent age and othersIT01Screen99replace. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindi DC Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

DC review: Joshideserved. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Broken citation

Citation #99 is broken " Harv error: link from CITEREFManjalRai2017 doesn't point to any citation." Graham Beards (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards: Hi there, Graham Beards! Thank you for noticing this - fixed now (there was a typo in the name of the first author). Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome. I would have fixed it, but I didn't know which one was correct. All the best for the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

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

---

i propose to delete "Respected for her acting prowess" from the lead as it just sounds weird and is unsourced too --FMSky (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article, so it is sourced. There's no need for sourcing in the lead. Also, there's nothing wrong with some positive commentary based on facts - her status as a respected actor is quite relevant and useful. The article has been accepted with this phrase in during its FAC. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: FA doesn't mean the article is perfect or needs permission for constructive edits.

When the same sentence already includes the fact that she has received accolades, it's not inappropriate to MOS:PUFFERY the needless reinforement "respected for her acting prowess". "Respected" is a MOS:PUFFERY watchword and the label itself wasn't invented by @UrielAcosta: As you obviously know, they aren't the only user feeling weird about this fragment.

"Unwilling to compromise her artistic convictions" is also in the elaborative section as "unwilling to compromise her artistic integrity", actually supported by statements. Repeating it in the lead has no added valus and sounds more highfalutin than encyclopedic.

While I have no investment in these recent edits, I can't say reverting them in this manner was good manners, pun intended. More so when the reverter makes "tone down" edits for very similar reasons.

@Shshshsh:@UrielAcosta: Forgot to sign... 49.228.177.246 (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

But FA definitely means that major changes to the lead need to be discussed. The article was not only accepted after being reviewed, it was also on WP's main page with these sentences in. Many acrors win awards. Meryl Streep and Angelina Jolie have won awards, it doesn't mean they enjoy the same status. Cate Blanchett has won awards and so has Julia Roberts. So what? Shah is particularly known for her acting, not stardom, so there's nothing wrong with it. And I have to disagree with you about repeating statements. Sorry, but that's what the lead is for - summarising and maybe repeating major factors from the body. The context is important, and the article is written within a neutral context which incorporates some negative commentary as well. From my experience with actor FACs, reviewers often ask for some description of actors' status and position. I think "respected" can be switched with "recognised" if that's the issue, but positive commentary is not only wrong, but also quite welcome when it is done in a fair and measured style. I was actually very careful not to indulge in some "she is considered one of...." but just a very short clause factually describing, based on what the article elaborates on later, what she is known/respected for. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

How the heck is this a "major change"? If you're the author of these disputed lines, you're way too attached to your "baby". I don't know what the others thought, for me the word alone is not a problem, the whole phrase is. It doesn't convey "she's recognized for her acting as opposed to stardom" the way you think it does, because without further reading no one would know it's a contrasting statement. Like you say, context is important, and at this point you have no context yet. Why peacock unnecessarily when you could just allow people to read on and reach their own conclusions? You already were on the front page, maybe it's time to relax a bit. I say again, FA doesn't mean the author then gets to gatekeep the article forever.

About the repeated thing, my point was that since this is already there further down, removal from the lead doesn't create a huge hole in the article like you insist. I don't care that you repeated it, I care that you reverted someone primarily based on personal attachment, not merit. You keep saying this should be discussed but you already told the first person who opened the discussion to basically shove it, on appeal to authority. No wonder then the next person acted without discussing first. You don't even have the authority you appeal to, because if you're trying to say removal of these fragments would have resulted in FA rejection, that's a very tall claim. I'm going to end my participation here, because it's a waste of time to argue with people who think they "own" an article. It's great that you worked hard and got FA, but I think you need to learn to take a step back.

49.228.120.252 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You've built an entire version of an alternative reality in your head, and based around it this giant text of bad faith. As a matter of fact, I accept the recent change where some part of it was removed. I can't think how you've come to the conclusion anything of what I said is based on my perception that I own the article. Please do not engage in casting such aspersions against editors, this behaviour is not allowed. Thanks for understanding. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like the wording 'think they "own"' , read it as "are unnecessarily territorial for personal attachment reasons". See, I could have been even longer. Anyway, yes, it was a bit long (I really should have just called the rfc myself, but I'm not sure if IP users can do that), but there was no "bad faith" anywhere, I'm sorry if you felt there was. As you can see, you didn't have the consensus you claimed.

Also, this sure isn't about "systemic bias" like you in turn tried to cast aspersions below. No one's stopping you from removing or calling for removal of cruft elsewhere. The Jolie fragment you mentioned, for one, is placed way down in the lead and comes off as an afterthought, and it has "has been cited as" in front of it, so the peacock tail never really opens. It's also about something both more easily quantifiable and globally important than subjective acting skills. Still, even in your case, "cited for her acting prowess" might have avoided you most of this drama, although I think it was still unnecessary given the rest of that same sentence. You'd be better off using "the world's most beautiful woman" from Jolie as your example, because "cited" or not, media hype like that definitely isn't lead-worthy. I'd remove it right now if not for protection. 49.228.246.209 (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a WP:SNOW. Consensus has been reached to remove "Respected for her acting prowess" from the lede, after the only editor in favour of keeping the text withdrew their objection to its removal. As the text has already been removed from the lede there is no further action to be undertaken as consequence of this RfC.TarnishedPath^talk 09:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the lead include "Respected for her acting prowess"? --FMSky (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• No (Summoned by bot) That's puffery. Further, with it currently being in the first paragraph of the lede, it's divergent from MOS:FIRSTBIO and I can't see that there's good reason for that divergence. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Factual positive commentary re an artist's status is widely used across Wikipedia, and this one is actually quite refined compared to what a number of FACs offer. The lead is a summary of the article, which does establish her position. I can think of switching "respected" with another word, and I welcome suggestions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• No per MOS:PUFFERY. Also wtf does this even mean? People respect her because she is a good actress? --FMSky (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @FMSky: You didn't offer analternative though. We could offer an alternative like "recognised for her acting prowess" which would fairly summarise her position as the article details later on. If that's acceptable, we'll have it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's no requirement that an RfC offer replacement text. The alternative offered in this RfC is removal. TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath: I didn't say that it's a requirement. But I offered to spare this RfC and if the problem is with this one word, I could agree it could be switched with something more appropriate. Because removal of this sentence does not mean something else could not be added, and no one wants these rounds of RfCs. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• No agree with others it is MOS:PUFFERY, which goes on to say - Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it. And if we look at the last part of that sentence in the lead – received local and foreign accolades for her performances – that clearly demonstrates that she is "Respected for her acting prowess". So there's no need for the puff. And also, no to switching a word, and no to something else being added, and no to a further round of RfCs. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've removed this specific line, but at the cost of doing a bit of WP:OTHER, there's a major question here about whether mentioning the status of an actor's artistic merit is ever right on Wikipedia. Looking at GAs on actors like Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett, or FAs on Angelina Jolie being "cited as one of the most powerful and influential people..." (and all of it is true and verfiable, by the way), I think this issue must be addressed at a larger scale. For some reason, this article is the one where it starts, which I believe is another example of ongoing systemic bias (and I do not for a minute mean to accuse any user in particular; it is a general problem which we editors on Indian articles encounter the most, and no one is to be blamed directly). I believe the actor wikiproject is a good place where we can discuss this broadly without targeting one particular article, so neutrality and fairness are kept. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• No that phrasing is subject and breaks MOS:FIRSTBIO. However, including a specific role that she's known for or an award that she's won might get the point across in an objective way. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• No per Isaidnoway and TarnishedPath. Nemov (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I have removed the phrase from the lead and accept the verdict that "Respected for her acting prowess" is not very fitting particularly because it's evident based on her artistic achievements mentioned right there in the lead. I thank all the users who took part in this request, and FMSky, you can remove the tag, as I clearly join the majority view in agreement with the problematic wording. When I have more time and based on how her career goes and this article keeps shaping up, I will think of new ways to enhance the lead based on what she is known for, but I think right now it's good as it stands. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Shshshsh, if you want to update your !vote to refelect your comment then we can close the RfC as a WP:SNOW however I think it would be inappropriate to remove the RfC tag. This needs a close one way or the other. TarnishedPath^talk 03:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath: WP:RFCEND allows for such closures by the original poster, FMSky. And by the way, you can do it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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