Talk:Sana Khan

Disambiguation

There are four different Sana Khans who currently have articles on Wikipedia. I think that a disambiguation page should be created at Sana Khan, with the contents at the current Sana Khan page to move to Sana Khan (actress). Coolcool₂₀₁₂(talk to me) 15:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sections dispute

Following a request to WP:RFPP, I've fully protected the article for one week to give User:Johannes003 and User:Dealtroadd some time to discuss their issues on the talk page. It'd be good if the two of you could post your views as to why the article should be the way you think it should be. Hopefully we can then have some uninvolved third parties have a look at the dispute between you two and help mediate and build consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already listed and explained all changes I made on Dealtrodd's talk page; Dealtrodd, however, refuses to reply/cooperate and continues to undo all edits without even giving any reasons. Just for comparison: This is my reworked version and this the prior version Dealtrodd is reverting back to again and again (whysoever). I would like to know why Mr. Dealtrodd is creating redundant (sub-)sections or why he removes the word Malayali, although it's explicitly stated in the article. This is a petty and rather silly dispute, but Dealtrodd should understand that no one owns articles and respect others' edits as well. Other experienced editors may have a look and decide which version is better. Johannes003 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

'controversies' section

I suggest that those responsible for this heap of garbage familiarise themselves with WP:BLP policy before restoring any of this nonsense. We DO NOT fill articles with tabloid tittle-tattle and vague 'allegations', just because someone is a Bollywood actress. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

content and tone

User:Dealtroadd has begun edit warring to insert this version which violates a lot of policies ranging from manual of style to serious BLP / NPOV issues like reasserting a "controversies" section. (see Andy's note above). While it is all fine and good that people want to write a celebrity gossip paean, you will need to start your own home fan page to do so, when you write here, you have to write formally for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Vital content

1. The term "item number" is used exclusively in India and South Asia. Adding a little explanation adds more clarity to the sentence. 2. The fact that she was raised in a "typical Indian middle class family" has got nothing to do with gossip.

Please stop making unnecessary disruptions or get blocked. Thank you.

applying policy and manual of style to our content is not disruption. Edit warring to remove it without policy basis IS disruptive. Specifically regarding your issues named above (although you have been edit warring over lots of additional content.)

1) we have links to item number if people do not know the word, and "Bollywood parlance"? - you have got to be kidding me! if you think our readers are so stupid they cannot click the link, WTF are they going to do when they hit the word "parlance"?

2) Quoting Sana stating that she came from "typical Indian middle class family" is in fact fluff. Or its Sana attempting to position herself in an appropriate publicity position. Either way, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

More than one Sana Khan?

An IP has indicated that the actress Sana Khan mentioned in this article [1] who died in a car crash is a different actress Sana Khan than our article. Can anyone verify? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. You beat me to it ... the person pictured in the ref doesn't even look the same Kap 7 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

the original report [2] [3] seems to confirm that it is a different person who died, the credits named are not similar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote to hopefully reduce the confusion of editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is still far from clear. The imdb page linked to lists her as deceased and has the same filmography as the article. Is the photo on this wiki page definitely her? The description says it is her bash but it may not be her I guess… Lineslarge (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

IMBD trivia is user generated by the same misinformed people who keep attempting to add it here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Charges

Per our policies regarding living people and policies regarding how much "weight" to give to particular aspects of the subject, criminal allegations that have not been proven MUST NOT be plastered with an entire section of their own. It may be (and probably is) appropriate to mention in brief, but the person wishing to include or re-include MUST attempt to do so in a matter that does not violate one of the primary content policies WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User @Anupmehra: has included only 4 sentences in most neutral way and in minimus words, not entire section. He has used 'allegedly' word, he has not written as if subject was indeed involved in crime. This incident was widely reported in media. In fact, there is enough material in reliable sources to write whole article about this incident. Your argument of UNDUE weight just for 4 sentences is completely wrong. If you oppose separate section, which section is relevant to insert this material? Abhi (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[4] Yes, it was an entire section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why most of users don't give damn to talkpage discussion because once the opposite user gets the article the way he likes, he tends to do time pass on talkpage to flame or wear out other users. He got nothing to lose. The section was created because the crime topic does not fit in any other section. You should tell in which other section this topic fits in. Abhi (talk)

If your typical participation on talk pages is to make blatantly false statements as you did above in claiming that it was not "an entire section", its not surprising that they dont go the way you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be reliable sources for these allegations all over the internet, and WP:NPOV doesn't allow for the article to be whitewashed. If not a separate section, where should this info be included? Under "Personal Life", maybe? The allegations should be mentioned, along with her response to each of them. But I agree it doesn't need to be the focus of the article. Ivanvector (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi all, I'm some real busy in daily doings and just logging in and was dragged in here by ping. I'm aware that some contents added by me into this article earlier has been removed now and a dead discussion is on here regarding the same. I may not reply any follow-up questions but I'd really like to read what is the actual problem here, a separate controversy section or contents of the controversy section, or the sources? If there's something else, please let me that know too. I don't see a reason to not re-instate the contents (doesn't matter, in earlier or any modified form).

In the revert rationale, WP:STRUCTURE was cited a reason to not include that. On here in the beginning, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It was also said, it could better be done without making any new section, 'in brief'. I'm a real confused about the actual problem so unable to address the matter. Please clarify. TRPoD may help? 'Why those four lines can't or shouldn't be added in this article?' Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

because WP:CRIME . we dont create a whole section for something about which there are only allegations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not at all what WP:CRIME says. CRIME says "don't create articles about people who are only known because they committed the crime, and that information would fit within existing articles" (parapharasing). You might mean WP:BLPCRIME, which encourages omitting information on accusations for relatively unknown people (paraphrasing again, emphasis mine), but actors are generally not considered relatively unknown people in my experience. We have multiple reliable sources covering the allegations; it's proper to include a mention of the allegations in this article (neutrally worded and weighted, of course) per WP:NPOV.

For example: "In May 2013, Khan was accused of involvement in the kidnapping of a 15-year-old girl.^[sources] The actress denied the allegations. // On 30 October 2014, the actress was arrested along with her boyfriend, Ismail Khan, and a servant, after police received a complaint alleging criminal intimidation and molestation of a media consultant.^[sources] They were granted bail on the same day.^[source]"

Suggested sources: [5], [6], [7]

As for where to put it, I don't know if not for under a new subheading. Ivanvector (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Ivanvector, I find BLPCRIME rationale to not include the earlier removed contents irrelevant here. One really is not here trying to portray 'Sana Khan' image of a criminal. She was accused of something that went viral through multiple national newspapers, a case was registered, and later granted bail in the case. The proposed contents do not read as she did really commit crime synthesizing contents from sources. They are just what sources do write about subject. If she was a 'relatively unknown person', we were not supposed to have an article on her. What actually is relevant here is WP:WELLKNOWN (please read the example #2). We have 'multiple reliable sources' that document the incidence and there's no reason to omit the same. I support the inclusion of the earlier removed contents (-in original or any modified form. for example as proposed above by User:Ivanvector). Sorry for ping, but again I'd like to read your words here, TRPoD. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

4 sentences in an article this short is still UNDUE weight, particularly since the authorities do not see the need to keep them behind bars until the trial. Preferably one sentence but it may take 2 to get the key points in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• An article with 17,104 bytes and 31 references is not really that much short to add-in four lines the deals with the subject alleged involvement in two cases that receive wide coverage in national English newspapers of 1.25 billion populated country.

There are not any already existing such material that adding four more would generate UNDUE weight. Minority view? There are full page coverage of the both incidents in national newspapers and one is summarizing the same, all of them in just four lines. For ex. -Actress Sana Khan held for assaulting woman, granted bail. Sana Khan controversy on kidnapping 15 year old girl and absconds, Bigg Boss ex-contestant and Mental's leading lady Sana Khan absconding. They are as many we may need.

They are the only four, two sentence for each case. As, the subject was accused in blah blah blah and a police was registered on XXday XXmonth XXXXyear.[source 1] [source2]. The subject denied the allegation, and was later granted bail in the case.[source 3] [source 4]. --similar two lines for the other case--. However If it could be better summarized in only two sentences, that would be good and welcomed and I invite you to write such two and expand and improve the present article adding the same. Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom -I feel like re-instating controversy thing, in 4 lines. If you can do it in 2 lines, please do. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirect Issue

I think "wajah tum ho" shouldn't be redirected here, cause "wajah tum ho" is not mentioned on this article.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranish.rock (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Smart LION: should answer this.- Managerarc™ ^talk 16:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you have understood "Wajah Tum Ho" as a song of Hate Story 3. But let me clear you that Wajah Tum Ho is one of her upcoming films. Here's the reliable source. I hope I have made myself clear. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ok thanks for your reply😊 Pranish|^Message 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sana Khan (2021).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Year of Birth Issue

There seems to be an issue with the subject's year of birth; Source 1 (currently referenced) dated 2013 states her age as being 25 years old, likening her year of birth as 1988, while Source 2 dated 2020 states her age as being 33 years old, likening her year of birth being 1987.

It would be worth checking the credibility of said sources as most of the sources in the internet are most inclined towards 1987 than 1988. Until then, removing the subject's birth year. M15s09 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@M15s09: There have been similar cases of multiple birth years in Indian biography articles. We have added both birth years in such scenarios before, after discussion ofcourse. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

So the Rediff ref provides {{Birth date and age|1988|8|21|df=y}} which results in (1988-08-21) 21 August 1988 and the NDTV ref provides {{Birth based on age as of date|33|2020|10|9}} which results in 1986 or 1987 (age 37–38). Is saying "born on 21 August in 1986, 1987 or 1988" useful? Geniac (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Geniac: I'd support mentioning "born on 21 August in 1987/1988" per the given sources. Wouldn't use '1986' since her birthday being 21 August is sourced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Image

The actress, who has now quit the film industry,wishes that all of her pictures without a veil are removed due to religious reasons. She finds the former ones' as offensive and hence breaching her privacy. Can we remove at least the the one on the infobox? Not sure if WP:Not censored or WP:Out would be relevant. 2.96.193.7 (talk) 2.96.193.7 (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

We have to take a look at WP:OWN as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)