Talk:Bulli Bai case

Lead
@TheAafi I have removed bold text. What else? What are you suggesting about the lead. Why will the citations be taken out of lead? Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , We do not generally cite things in the lede because we have had already cited that stuff in the body. The lede acts only as a short summary to "what has been written in the body with references". Thanks ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  09:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Will do. Venkat TL (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Ainty Painty Please see the discussion thread above on DYK. Please help. --Venkat TL (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments on DYK
@TrangaBellam what are you calling Vile on the DYK page. Why are you making unnecessary and offtopic comments on the DYK Page? I suggest you clarify what exactly you are referring to as Vile in your comment. It seems folks are assuming you are referring to the (current state of) article as vile. Venkat TL (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article was vile and I do not think that my comments were misconstrued. There are certain hooks that are never suitable for the main page - I stand by my comments. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust is vile. I guess if its article comes on DYK, you will go there and make the same remark and then when called out, Stand by your comment. Venkat TL (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Could you explain how the Karnataka controversy is a consequence of the app? I think it would be better placed in "see also" rather than aftermath, as the two incidents are disconnected. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @CapnJackSp, Please read This RS. It is not a consequence. It is an aftermath. Part of the Hindutva project. Venkat TL (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An aftermath would mean that the controversy had something to do with this. And as far as I can see, the article does not name any particular app, just online attacks in general.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The content I have added is Reliably sourced. WP:CHALLENGE. Please ask CNN why they have mentioned Bulli Bai in their article on Hijab Row. Venkat TL (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My point exactly, the article does not mention bulli bai at all.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Obligatory ping.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Carried out due to lack of response.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It does. Please read the CNN. there is an entire section devoted to it. Venkat TL (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly state that section. There is no such section, I have read the report. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Section name: "Muslim women further targeted" Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It simply mentions it in passing, among a list of other harrassment. The app is not named at all. Also, since this is extremely similar to the "background" dispute on WP:NPOVN, I think it would be appropriate to remove it till that dispute is resolved.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point it looks as though you are not participating in good faith here. What do you think the section is talking about then? If there was any confusion, CNN even linked the Bulli bai article. Venkat TL (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel that way. However, my opi ion on the matter has not changed. As I stated, "@Venkat TL: Could you explain how the Karnataka controversy is a consequence of the app? I think it would be better placed in "see also" rather than aftermath, as the two incidents are disconnected" Is perfectly applicable. The incident is not an aftermath. If you still want to include it, it can go as "See Also", not otherwise. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did CNN add an entire section on Bullibai in that article on Hijab? and not just a READ NEXT article at the bottom sidebar? The reason is same. Venkat TL (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not the editor for CNN, and that argument does not correspond to Wiki Etiquette. As you have introduced the material, the onus is on you to prove that it is necessary. Even as such, it is blatantly clear that the section is a general discussion. Apart from your CNN article which has a tangential mention of this app, most media does not correlate this app and the Hijab controversy.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Carried out due to no response from the concerned editor for three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnJackSp (talk • contribs) 05:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Name of Accused
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. WP:BLPNAMEDdd421 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)