Talk:Bhavana (actress)

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavana (actor) → Bhavana (actress) – More common disambiguating tag is "actress". Arfaz (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, gender-neutrality may be a worthy aim, but "actor" out of context just sounds like a man.--Kotniski (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bhavana actress.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Bhavana actress.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That photo was taken by myself. All rights reserved. 

Kunchakoboban2022 (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That photo was taken by myself. All rights reserved. 

Kunchakoboban2022 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bhavna at CCL2 party, Vizag, India, 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Bhavna at CCL2 party, Vizag, India, 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bhavna at CCL2 party, Vizag, India, 2011.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: First is moved to Bhavana (Malayalam actress), Second is not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– Current disambiguation phrases not precise. The second actress has also appeared in Tamil/Hindi/Tulu/Telugu films. Timmyshin (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support first though Bhavana (Kerala actress) would be more recognizable than a birth date, given that the other's date of birth is not known. Oppose second pending evidence that she is known by this name. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just searched the proposed second move "ಭಾವನಾ ರಾಮಣ್ಣ" not clear at all that the older actress (Bhavana (disambiguation)) is known by stage name + real surname. Did find a few articles, but in the minority. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, Bhavana (Malayalam actress) per User:CookieMonster755 makes more sense. Still oppose second move. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sexual assault[edit]

In this edit I removed the content about the subject's sexual assault. It was in the Career section, which was not well-conceived, as it has nothing to do with her career. If this content is going to be included, someone needs to figure out a more intuitive place for it. However, I do fear that without any other information, (like details about a trial, a conviction, subsequent activism to fight rape or to change laws,) a unique section would unduly draw attention to a negative event without providing sufficient context. I also fail to see where it could be intuitively included elsewhere in the article.

Also, per WP:BLPCRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." It would be a mistake to implicate a suspect, especially when worded as it was by Koodfaand here. Koodfaand, you need to brush up on your understanding of libel and what sort of phrasing could potentially be considered libelous. It is poor judgment to assert, without any trial conviction, that someone was involved in a rape. The smarter approach here is to omit the details about potential suspects, should someone find a way to resolve the other issues raised above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I think we can include a new section Kidnaping but I feel it's too soon to write anything because different sources provide the different story and this recently published sources confirmed that that the actress hasn’t alleged rape. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987: I trust your judgment. The biggest issue was the BLPCRIME concern as well as the issue of drawing undue attention to an event that may not have much 10-year relevance. Your additional notes, that it might be premature to include at all, are appreciated. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! and I think we should wait till we receive more clear information like you said above (details about a trial, a conviction, subsequent activism to fight rape or to change laws) before making any statement but in worst case if someone wants to include this information I believe it should be written from a natural point of view without violating WP:BLPCRIME and must not be one-sided. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, I removed the connection made in the article between actor Dileep and the sexual assault. The two references did not have the name of the actress. It is WP:OR because the references do not support the claim. This problem arises because of the Indian law (to protect the victim) bans anything which connects her to a particular crime in public. She can potentially sue wikipedia for this entire section. Drajay1976 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should Controversy be blanked ?[edit]

This thread is more than 4 years old. Please open a new discussion instead of replying to this. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 09:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Users and IP adresses state that revealing the identity of the person is a violation of Indian law. @Cyphoidbomb: What should be done here ? King Prithviraj II (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Do note that the link that the citation mentioned (http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2017/feb/20/leading-malayalam-actor-gets-reportedly-abducted-and-molested-by-former-employee-1571991.html<) has been edited to remove the actress name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.246.183 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring regarding this issue, let the section remain blank for now according to WP:BLP, all sources have removed the actress's name from their list, and Wikipedia does not have a citation stating the name of the actress. King Prithviraj II (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police taking legal action against people who use her name on public domain.but she complained in police bout the attack hapnd against her on the very next day of that incident Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources do not include the name of the actress then we should not have the information added to the article, as there is no longer a reference to this specific actress. Greedo8 14:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of Indian law. If multiple reliable sources have released the name, then the information would be up for consideration. That said, we are also not required to list every detail about a subject, and it would be prudent to consider WP:BLPPRIVACY, but again, if this is common knowledge that is widely reported, we can adjust accordingly. Wikpedia is not a breaking news site, and we're not here to "get the scoop" on major journals. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to make a case for blanking of the whole section. Unlike what Cyphoidbomb has stated above, all the edits made in Wikipedia can come under jurisdiction of individual countries as stated in the clause 1b of the terms of use. The editors who decide to include content which go against the law of the land will have to face the consequences on their own. What are the consequences? Section 228A of the Indian Penal code provides for two year imprisonment and fine for anyone who discloses the identity of a victim of sexual assault. An exception can be made only on the written permission of the victim. She 'coming out', is not a written permission to reveal her name as the victim, in my opinion. So, everyone who edited in that section in a way that could reveal her identity are in risk of facing arrest and imprisonment. (even fine). So, that is that. --Drajay1976 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification.

The above quote is from clause 1b of the terms of use. Wikipedia ***does not*** give immunity or promise to protect the editors from legal action. --Drajay1976 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drajay1976 While a lot of sections here discuss the same thing, please do not revive sections that are dead 4 years ago. Instead start a new one if you think no other section suits what you want to convey. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 09:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bhavana (Malayalam actress). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Done (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 10:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Bhavana (Malayalam actress) → Bhavana (actress) – Dab for Malayalam not necessary since there's no other actress in the same name, plus the current naming is improper anyway since she is also active in Kannada, Tamil, and Telugu language films. If it was meant for her ethnicity, then it should have been Bhavana (Malayali actress). Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. — Zawl 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • BD2412, she is popular than those actresses and any topic with the name Bhavana (page views). She is known simply with her mononymous stage name Bhavana. If page views is considered, then actress Bhavana can usurp Bhavana, the term. Hope it cleared your doubt. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it has. Support the move, primary topic for this name. bd2412 T 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bhavana is a primary topic. Why would you want to disambiguate a primary topic. If partial dab is a problem then I suggest it moved to 'Bhavana', usurping the word. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Names[edit]

I have just moved Bhavana Ramanna back to Bhavana (Kannada actress), because that recent move was made against the RM of 2016, above on this page. As far as I can see, the Kannada actress is commonly referred to mononymically as well,[1][2][3] so this move has created a partial disambiguation situation, which would often be discouraged, even if one is primary over the other. @Zawl: please could you undo the move and reopen the RM so we can discuss further? I oppose the above move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru: Media often refers celebrities with their first name as well. Per WP:COMMONNAME, it's Bhavana Ramanna, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. She is an actress, producer, politician and dancer. This is a poster for the film Niruttara produced by her, see how she is credited ("Produced by: Bhavana Ramanna"). Her name in her official (not verified though) Facebook page is Bhavana Ramanna. Also see how she is mentioned in India's leading movie ticket selling site Bookmyshow.com. In politics, she is allegiant to Indian National Congress, her name is mentioned as Ms. Bhavana Ramanna in INC's official site. She is the chairperson of Bal Bhavan Society, an educational organisation, see her name given in their website. Clearly she prefers and is credited and known by the name Bhavana Ramanna. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Let There Be Sunshine: I don't deny that there are some sources which use the longer Bhavana Ramanna name, but the question is what is the common name. To test that, I did a Google news search requesting just "Bhavana" and the name of her most recent film, "Niruttara".[11] This search would be equally likely to show Bhavana Ramanna or just Bhavana, depending how the source wrote it. And as you can see, most results coming up there just say "Bhavana". For most actresses or actors, sources would show FirstName Surname. That is why I believe that the single name version is the common name. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: You could have understood this if you were an Indian. Because, South Indian media outlets often refer celebrities with their first name alone. Most South Indian actors also follows a mononymous name. Here, case is different she is not an actor who uses a mononymous name, as seen from her social media handle, screen credits and off-screen credits she uses the name Bhavana Ramanna, which is her common name. Also, the dab 'Kannada actress' is an improper name since she has also acted in other languages. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2019[edit]

Updating about her new film Govinda Govinda Shreyashv2604 (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2019 (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. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

Hi, while patrolling recent changes, I have reverted two edits by an IP editor attempting to remove content from this page [12][13], and then had second thoughts[14]. Although the editor did not give an edit summary, I am inclined to assume good faith and let the page watchers decide what should be done with this content and whether its removal is a proper application of WP:BLP. JBchrch (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch, It's been something going on for a while, trying to hide what happened basically. Add in the very lurid copyvio screenshots the IP also added plus the name changes, these are not good-faith edits. It's a mess, for sure. Ravensfire (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content (2)[edit]

Libra cursa, Why are you removing sourced content? Your edit summary doesn't make any sense. Note that the Wikipedia policy is to discuss on talk if you get reverted, not to simply repeat your edits. hemantha (brief) 11:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:BLPCRIME allows this content which is removed, as we are not portraying him as guilty, nor is he not a public figure thus allowing to document. Of course, the article needs to be updated, but that is another issue, I presume? — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, updating has to be another issue. For one, Libra cursa might be taking my reverts to boards in the near future and I'm not particularly well-informed about this as it is. hemantha (brief) 15:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This particular board, WP:AIV, doesn't need to be informed. The ones at WP:AN will need a notification. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 15:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant: not well informed about the topic, Bhavana/Dileep etc. hemantha (brief) 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, silly me! — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 15:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sources cited do not say it is Bhavana. I'd have to agree with Drajay1976 that it might be WP:OR ([15] and [16]). — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the whole section. While I get Drajay1976's point, it's a feeble technicality, especially moot since multiple WP:RS have indeed specifically linked him to the main accused, Pulsar Suni. There's an argument to be made whether the section belongs here at all, which since nobody has made, I wasn't bold enough to implement by nuking it outright. hemantha (brief) 17:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to make a case for blanking of the whole section. The edits made in Wikipedia can come under jurisdiction of individual countries as stated in the clause 1b of the terms of use. The editors who decide to include content which go against the law of the land will have to face the consequences on their own. What are the consequences? Section 228A of the Indian Penal code provides for two year imprisonment and fine for anyone who discloses the identity of a victim of sexual assault. An exception can be made only on the written permission of the victim. She 'coming out', is not a written permission to reveal her name as the victim, in my opinion. So, everyone who edited in that section in a way that could reveal her identity are in risk of facing arrest and imprisonment. (even fine). So, that is that.

You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification.

The above quote is from clause 1b of the terms of use. Wikipedia does not give immunity or promise to protect the editors from legal action. And, the objective of this law is to protect the victims. Not to protect the accused. I believe we should exercise caution and wait till the legal proceedings are over. --Drajay1976 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no difference of opinion, I intend to blank the section entirely in the next two days. As per Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, it is the prudent thing to do for the safety of the editors, in my opinion. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am blanking the section as there seems to be no opposing opinion. --Drajay1976 (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restored fully-sourced content, as Wikipedia is not censored, nor am I subject to the Indian Penal Code here in the U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orangemike, you may not be subject to Indian Penal Code, but all the Indian editors who were involved in editing that section will be - the edit history is there for everyone to see! It won't be you who will be charged, if you just include the content again. Besides, WP:CENSOR does not apply in this case because the section was not removed because it is objectionable or offensive. It was removed because it was illegal. WP:LIBEL would apply here more than WP:CENSOR, because in India, women who were sexually assaulted have the right to keep their identity secret. Here, keeping the information just extends victimization of the indivdiual. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is the policy we should follow in my opinion. I don't want to get into an edit war. I won't blank this section again. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The victim has made the incredibly courageous choice to step forward and declare that this has happened. We cannot let the legal system be manipulated to undo her act of bravery and resolve. The Indian editors are not to blame for what I chose to do. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPC Section 228A? Making legal threat itself can get you blocked (WP:LEGAL, WP:NPLT), not to mention censoring content with it. 1(b) of Terms of Use does not instructs to remove content that violates any local law, instead, it advices those editors who are bound to abide a local law that they should be cautious as the local authorities may apply their law on the editor if he/she resides under that jurisdiction, even though Wikipedia "may not agree with such actions". Regarding 228A, why should an Australian care about Indian law for editing Wikipedia which is hosted in the U.S.? Indian law applies only in India and Wikipedia only follows the U.S law. Wikipedia is available in 325 languages across the world. If every country's law was followed then Wikipedia would not be the same site you see now. WMF has never obeyed any foreign country's laws and has even defied government warnings, because of that the site was blocked by some countries, the most infamous being the three year ban in Turkey, nevertheless, the content remains unchanged. Even the Indian government had warned Wikipedia to change India's map to conform with the borders set by their Constitution, the map still remains unchanged. Where Indian Constitution itself is disobeyed you think you can censor something with IPC? Unlike social networking sites, WMF is nonprofit and hence need not to worry about losing business. The maximum these countries can do is site block or to take action against editors within their territory (that's what 1(b) says), but still you cannot censor.

WP:LIBEL does not apply here as this is not a "defamation" but a real factual incident, neither do WP:AVOIDVICTIM as it is for "a person noteworthy only for one or two events". The actress is fine publicly identifying herself as the victim in this case, whether she's fine or not, Wikipedia is NOT censored and you cannot remove victim's name or any content, unless it violates any Wikipedia policy or the U.S law. WP:NOTCENSORED clearly states: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)"; and WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". So, it is what it is. 2409:4073:2E82:CD7A:C522:5000:D7B8:D4A2 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make a legal threat at all!! A legal threat is "a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors". I did no such thing! I did not say that I will move against any of the editors. I only described what can happen as per Indian law. A foreigner may restore content added by Indian editors and you need not care about Indian law at all. All up to you! As long as the content is there in the page, if someone files a case, it is the editors who added the content who will be held responsible, as far as I know. If you want to be solely responsible, I think you should add content of your own instead of restoring the page to a previous version edited by another editor. Claiming that I made a legal threat when I did no such thing is, WP:LAWYERING in my opinion. Like I said earlier, I don't want to get into an edit war. I won't blank the section again.--Drajay1976 (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
/ / Where Indian Constitution itself is disobeyed you think you can censor something with IPC? // Read WP:CENSOR. I blanked the section after a discussion in this talk page. I never said that I am removing the content because it is "objectionable or offensive"! Please don't do WP:LAWYERING --Drajay1976 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drajay1976:I think this discussion started off on a wrong foot. If you had cited state of California laws instead of citing Indian laws this discussion would not have dragged on for so long 😁 Sahir Shah 12:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content in this page is in violation of United States Laws[edit]

Hello, Wikimedia foundation is registered in the state of California, United States and have to comply with applicable laws. Some of the content appearing in this page is in violation of California laws that prohibit publishing a rape victim's name. Kindly do not allow this content on this page Sahir Shah 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: @CapnZapp: This was already raised in the talk page. Sahir Shah 13:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: You asked for references about laws of Florida and South Carolina that prohibit publishing a rape victims. Laws aside it's also common decency to refrain from adding to a rape victim's shame and agony. Hope this is sufficient : https://ethicscasestudies.mediaschool.indiana.edu/cases/naming-newsmakers/anonymity-for-rape-victims.html Sahir Shah 14:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the previous discussion because the article fell off my watchlist (my mistake). You haven't linked any Calif. law prohibiting this, so I'll address only your "common decency" claim. Bhavana herself has addressed this and I'd used the Economic Times article as the very first ref in that section. In light of what Orangemike has called above, very appropriately, as an incredibly courageous choice to step forward, claims of "common decency" can possibly come across as sea-lioning. Hemantha (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemantha: It's not illegal in California, only in Florida and South Carolina. WP:CENSOR says "US laws", it does not say it has to be law of California where Wikipedia is incorporated or US federal law. If that was the intention it should be clearly stated. When I raised the issue earlier I wasn't aware that the victim herself has no objection to her name being dragged into this. The point I was trying to make at that time was that the page Dileep already has a paragraph on the same incident, so what is the need to duplicate the same material here and identify the victim in the process ? Re: "Sealioning" - is a type of trolling where persistent requests for evidence are made while ignoring the evidence that is already provided. For example what you are doing right now is a classical example of sealioning. It can also be categorized as 'misuse of jargon fallacy' and 'appeal to definition fallacy'. Hope this helps. 🙂🙂 BTW, I am no longer interested in this topic. Have a nice day 🙂 PastaMonk 16:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In future, don't repeatedly remove sourced content which had extensive previous talk discussions when you aren't aware of full facts of the issue; especially if you don't wish your actions to be seen as vandalism. Hemantha (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK Sir. A thousand apologies 😁 I was just following the directive in WP:Be bold... did not realize being bold would stir up so many people. In future I shall seek your guidance when I feel inclined be bold 🙂 PastaMonk 16:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavana's profile photo is to be added to Wikipedia.[edit]

That photo was taken by myself. All rights reserved. Kunchakoboban2022 (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That photo was taken by myself. All rights reserved. 

Kunchakoboban2022 (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kunchakoboban2022:, Which photo did you talking about? Fade258 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. no decision made as to which title to move to – robertsky (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavana (actress) → Bhavana Menon – Name as per media. Every single review of her latest film uses her last name, see [17] [18] and Case of Kondana#Reception. Similar case to [19] Tamannaah Bhatia. Gets rid of unneeded parentheticals.

A general search of Bhavana (actress) confirms this. DareshMohan (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 1 May 2024[edit]

Bhavana (actress) → Bhavana (actress, born 1986) – WP:PDAB versus Bhavana (Kannada actress) not justified. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit! 11:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she predominantly worked in Malayalam films and her native is Kerala. So, we could go with Bhavana (Malayalam actress) if Bhavana (actress) is common one. Aadirulez8 (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bhavana (Kannada actress) also acted in the Malayalam film Otta, though, so that's still ambiguous. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhavana_(actress)&oldid=1223198723"