Talk:Bhavana (actress)

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Bhavana actress.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bhavna at CCL2 party, Vizag, India, 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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,  It would be a mistake to implicate a suspect, especially when worded as it was by  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sexual assault 

message: Users and IP adresses state that revealing the identity of the person is a violation of Indian law.  What should be done here ? King Prithviraj II (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title: Should Controversy be blanked ?

message: 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, so this move has created a partial disambiguation situation, which would often be discouraged, even if one is primary over the other.  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)
replies: text:  Media often refers celebrities with their first name as well. Per WP:COMMONNAME, it's Bhavana Ramanna, , , , , , , . 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)
replies: text:  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". 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Names 

message: Updating about her new film Govinda Govinda Shreyashv2604 (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2019 

message: Hi, while patrolling recent changes, I have reverted two edits by an IP editor attempting to remove content from this page , and then had second thoughts. 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Removal of content 

message: 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)
replies: text:   This was already raised in the talk page.  Sahir Shah 13:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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 , claims of "common decency" can possibly come across as sea-lioning. Hemantha (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: In future, don't repeatedly remove sourced content which had extensive previous talk discussions when you aren't  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some of the content in this page is in violation of United States Laws 

message: That photo was taken by myself. All rights reserved. Kunchakoboban2022 (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , Which photo did you talking about? Fade258 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhavana's profile photo is to be added to Wikipedia. 

message: :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)
replies: text: Bhavana (actress) →  – Name as per media. Every single review of her latest film uses her last name, see   and Case of Kondana#Reception. Similar case to  Tamannaah Bhatia. Gets rid of unneeded parentheticals. 
A general search of Bhavana (actress) confirms this. DareshMohan (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 February 2024