kanika Kapoor

please add some info in that regard. Leningrad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect and unverifiable information is constantly added to this page. The information is being added to misrepresent the person. I added an "early life" section to give more background information but another user keeps changing factual information to put in info that is not verifiable, or relevant to the article. I don't believe the information added meets the guidelines for biographies of living people, as they seem to be trying to slander the person. Pclams (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This article was listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. It's taken me a while to fix the error since the article has been edited so frequently. I have removed unsourced information: the husband's name; the year of the marriage [important, since the birth date is disputed]; the word "divorced" [since the source only says "walk out". None of the three Times of India articles confirm that Anjjan asked Kapoor to sing; one mentions them singing together but does not say how this came about. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Over the years we have had different dates of birth in this article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Additionally, various dates of birth can be found on various websites. So before a date of birth is added once again in the article, we would need to find a solid WP:RS. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yeasayer: Hello. Following your latest edit summary ("Am undoing my edit and will up load more with Documentation, including proper Marriage year etc from UK Court records"), can you please take a look at the following Wikipedia policy: WP:BLPPRIMARY. We (i.e. you, me and all Wikipedia editors) are prohibited from using court records. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanika Kapoor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316160729/http://www.927bigfm.com/bsea2014/nomination_list.php to http://www.927bigfm.com/bsea2014/nomination_list.php

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) 01:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the information of Kanika Kapoor's birthdate. It was written 23rd March but it is wrong. The real birthdate of Kanika Kapoor is 21st August. When i corrected some people keep changing it again and again. I don't know why people do like this. Kanika replied us in comments on instagram that her birthday is on 21st August and not on 23rd March. Whoever wrote that her birthdate is 23rd March does not know the real date and writes wrong. I hope you all people understand that this is the only real birthdate of Kanika Kapoor. You can ask any of the fanclubs of her on instagram. Afsha Shaikh (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanika Kapoor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126045624/http://www.media247.co.uk/showbiz/brit-asia-tv-music-awards-2012-the-winners to http://www.media247.co.uk/showbiz/brit-asia-tv-music-awards-2012-the-winners

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) 23:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jaswant Singh4: hello. You removed well sourced content here and here; with edit summary: "Statements can read out in the media website. Not needed here." The content added is not written by media website. They are quotations by director of a well reputed hospital, quoted by reliable source, in an article completely dedicated to these tantrums by Kapoor. There are multiple other reliable sources covering it. Only because something is negative, doesn't mean it should be removed from the article. We have to maintain both sides, and achieve neutrality. Kindly do not remove that particular content without proper discussion with other editors on the talkpage of the article. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:, Thanks for your concern. Firstly, this coronavirus section doesn't even deserve a separate section in article. It should have been covered under personal life. Let's leave this for later. Talking about the "tantrums", let's assume she is lady who always shows tantrums. So, you think that those "tantrums" need to be published because they are occuring during the disease. Its just a dumb reason. Talking about the statements, do we, at Wikipedia need statements to "prove tantrums". Isn't it an encyclopaedia. Its just the people and media speculation that she may have infected others while all the media reports says that all her acquaintances reported negative. So, there is no meaning of needlessly expanding this section by writing who and who attended the parties and all. Hope you understood. Jaswant Singh4 (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jaswant Singh4: thanks for your reply.
1. Because of her, ex chief minister of a state, a few MPs, and MLAs went in self-quarantine. Further, the President of India had cancel his plans. It has been well covered in reliable sources. If MLAs, MPs, and even the President of India is not important enough for you, i dont know what else is. With that logic, we can trim down wikipedia by 50%.
2. Talking about the tantrums, it has nothing to do with disease. We (you, me, and all the wikipedia editors), have nothing to "prove". We simply add the facts from reliable secondary sources. Multiple reliable sources have published article solely covering the tantrums. Thats why it can be added in the article.
   1. Yes, lets assume that she is a lady who always throws tantrums. If you can provide few different reliable sources for that, we can add that information in the article as well  
3. The article, or me, is not speculating she infected anybody else. But people went in self quarantine, and I added that in the article. Vasundhara Raje's twit clearly states she went in self quarantine because she met Kapoor. Later, secondary relaible sources report the same with reference to Raje's twit. The article is not speculating anything.
4. None of the media reports are saying "all her acquaintances" tested negative. Last time I checked, the number was ~60 out of ~300. The authorities are still tracking the people she came in contact with. All of them getting tested, and getting the result, is nothing but sheer speculation from your side.
Hope you understood. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I can agree with you on 1,3 and 4 point but not on the 3rd one. "Multiple reliable sources have published this, so this can be added to Wiki kanika Kapoor". Acc. to your theory, I am adding to this article that "she loves her children very much" and "she was manhandled at one of her concerts". Don't be tense about sources, I have great list of reliable sources to prove these points. By the way, you yourself have accepted that the "tantrums have nothing to do with this disease". Then, why such a "deep analysis of tantrums supported by statements" is present in CORONAVIRUS section. It should be eliminated in the first place itself. Hope you agreed. Jaswant Singh4 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jaswant Singh4: yes, I agree on the inclusion of the stuff you suggested, and I still disagree about removal of tantrums. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)