Talk:Sara Ali Khan

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018

NirmalNath123 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 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. -- Flooded with them hundreds 13:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

age=25 Ankitp245 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bradv🍁 05:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Age

Sara Ali Khan is 25 years old. Many sources, including Khaleej Times ([1]), The Times of India ([2]), The News International ([3]) and The Telegraph (Calcutta) ([4]) report her age as 25. Even Wikipedia reported her age as 25 before she appeared on an interview with Daily News and Analysis and called Wikipedia as “a liar” for representing the sources correctly.([5]) After this incident someone changed the age to 25 citing the interview. This is one of those numerous cases where actresses lie to prevent being victims in an ageist industry. If she is 23 as she claims, then there are numerous contradictions; she would be far too young to have gained admission at Columbia University unless she is a child prodigy or something. Does one of the girls in this picture look younger by two years to the other? Maybe there is a chance for yes since each person has different ageing curves but when viewed in the light of the above evidence its a no. Her age should be written as 25 or atleast as a range. 2.51.187.111 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You say that "she would be far too young to have gained admission at Columbia University" Actually, no. One is admitted when one is 17 and graduates when one is 21, which fits perfectly with her current age. Also, we aren't forensic scientists to guess a person's age by looking at photographs (like, seriously!) And finally, believe what a person says about his/her own age unless there is hardcore evidence to prove that one has lied. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources are what matter. If there are enough reliable sources that gives the other age, the way to go may be to include both. Are there any RS that has written in plain text that the younger age is wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources mentioned as her older before she gave an interview clarifying her age. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The News International source is from 17 December, but The clarification interview is from 10 December.2.51.187.111 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

But does any source say that she lied about her age? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe no, but many sources continue to report her age as 25. Other sources: CNN-News18 from 5 Jan 2019 ([6]), Times Now from 19 December 2018 ([7]), Deccan Chronicle from 25 Dec ([8]), etc. So in all, many say 25 years. We don’t need to say she lied, just something like she says she is 23, some media reports place the age at 25 or like that. 2.51.187.111 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• A person's birth date is considered to be a part of their private life. I feel we should state the date/age which she identifies with. All others are simply speculating even if they are reputable sources. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know any WP chapter and verse on this besides WP:BLP, but I can see the argument that her age is an encyclopedic fact that we should get right if possible. She is a public person that has spoken about her age in at least one interwiev, that is not "private" life. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The right word to use here in place of private might be personal; the best person here who would know about her birthdate is herself, and there should be no reason to not trust her word unless a source has openly expressed qualms about it. Some websites have stated her age to be 25 post-clarification, but that might stem from misinformation as Google’s Knowledge Graph hasn’t been updated yet. Do note that the first version of this article to mention any date placed her age at 23, which was conveniently vandalised by an IP who increased the age by 2 years. Both edits took place in 2017. We have no sources published before this revision that state her to be two years older, but here’s Femina calling her a 21 year old before both revisions, back in 2016, which would make her 23 years in 2018 (and early 2019, upto her birthday). Her clarification was also directly aimed at Wikipedia, so I am seeing a strong case of WP:CIRCULAR here, from Wikipedia to Google’s Graph where it has stuck around for long enough to be copied by other sources. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This article from India Today clearly states her to be 16 in Jan unary 2012, thus confirming her to be 23 exactly 7 years later in Jan 2019. Rik SC (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rik SC (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

BeingSallu please gain consensus for this version instead of blindly reverting. How in the world does Wikipedia:BECONCISE apply here? The article is far from being unnecessarily long. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I've long read WP:GACR, which I know you are aware of, mate, since you nominated the Kartik Aaryan article for it. I didn't blindly revert, the version history shows that. The intro and early life paragraphs are pretty much the same info in my edits as before, I sought to reduce mentioning the same info over and over. The info about the film's ban has nothing to do with the actress herself; it's only filler. WP:BECONCISE requests the information to be focused on the topic, doesn't only refer to the article size. The article isn't unnecessarily long but the details about the ban are unnecessary. Therefore, in accordance with both WP:SS and WP:BECONCISE, I sought to remove it. Have fun, BeingSallu (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead is a summary to the article, not a "repetition". Also, how is information related to the difficulties in making her debut film not necessary? It is the reason why she was sued by the producer, which is mentioned in the next paragraph. Removing this information results in no context for the later information. The details of the ban too lend heft to the text, so that it is more than just a listing of her roles and reviews. See WP: FA-class articles like Deepika Padukone and Sonam Kapoor to see how the career section needs to be written. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The intro or "lead" mentions parents AND grandparents. The grandparents part is an extra level of detail that is unnecessary in the intro given that her ancestry is expanded upon in the Early life section. The first paragraph of the career section doesn't mention that the filming was suspended. To provide context, without going into unnecessary detail which can be found in the film's page, you could write "She began work on it when filming of Kedarnath was temporarily suspended because ...". Lines of details about the film's release is going into a level of detail that is not in accordance with WP:SS and WP:BECONCISE. I'm actually familiar with Padukone's article (thanks for your contributions to that). Take for example the paragraph about Padmavat. All but one line is about her and even that line is contextually a continuation of the previous few. Nice talking with you, BeingSallu (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)