Talk:Mohammed Zubair (journalist)

Page move proposal
This is not a biography page. It should be moved to Arrest of Muhammad Zubair, so that the real topic can be dealt with satisfactorily. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This article was already redirected once by as its notability depends on AltNews. I don't see his arrest of significance as it saw the same amount of coverage as many other journalists who got jailed and he is already out of jail now. I think this should be just redirected back to AltNews, though that article can have slightly more content about this person. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I contested the move made by Prax because they moved it unliterary without providing a legit proof. The arrest of Zubair has received international attention as well making this case a notable one. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3, why didn't you start a regular RM? RM's are better than just self proposals. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it is not only change of title, but also involves change of scope, which needs prior discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see. This makes sense. I agree with this page being moved to Arrest of Muhammad Zubair given that we really don't have much coverage about him prior to his arrest. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why that shouldn't be covered on AltNews page? The arrest wasn't significant enough to warrant a new page since it can be already covered on the page of AltNews. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has notability guidelines to check whether a subject merits a standalone article or not. Leaving these guidelines to side, you're talking weird. You need to establish why Zubair's arrest isn't notable one. Anyways, this discussion is about something else. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This bio article should be kept. If you feel like creating an arrest article, for more details, you can create, both are notable topics. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is to be a bio article, the "Lawsuit" section is extremely overweight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added 2 links to his interviews. He has given 7-8 interviews recently. there is enough content for his biography other than the arrests, for this bio article to be kept. Also he has already been given bail, so the arrest event is over. Venkat TL (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comparison table
-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC), updated 18:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
The current version of the lead is the version before REDISCOVERBHARAT made their edits. A criticism of those edits was they removed what appears to be well-sourced material. At WP:ANI, AdoTang seemed to be expressing the view that the version of the lead in the 18:15, 28 April 2023 version might be preferable to the version before REDISCOVERBHARAT made their edits, saying that is had an actual proper lead that doesn't dedicate most of it to a recent event. I am surprised at that. It seemed obvious to me that the original was better. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I can see that Modi would prefer version two (28 April). But this is the lead? Version two is more concise than 21 April. . Version three (29 April)  strikes a balance and is best. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said at ANI: I know little to nothing about Zubair or the state of journalism in India, and I don't particularly feel too invested in it to take a hardline stance while editing here. But it seems to me that the current lead—which is almost entirely about the June 2022 arrest, which it discusses at length—suggests he's only really notable for that. I guess I have two issues with that:
 * He's clearly not notable for just the June arrest. The article states he's been involved in at least three other controversies, and it even suggests he's been in trouble with the police before. Sure, maybe those didn't get much coverage, but not a single mention in the lead? A reader could assume June 2022 was his first run-in with the law ever.
 * The current lead doesn't mention much about Zubair himself, just that he's a journalist that founded a news outlet. No mention of what he does or the other controversies, just those two things in a single sentence, followed by several lines about the arrest.
 * I do think some elements of the current revision could be kept, though they should preferably be brief. The information in the lead should be balanced out. AdoTang (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just made an edit that I think is pretty good. Adds enough information to the lead to balance the thing out. Also did some copyediting and section renames, but the topic here is the lead, so yeah. This lead should work. AdoTang (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobel Prize nominations
The lead mentions - "He and Alt News co-founder Pratik Sinha were nominated for the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize." This statement should be modified to provide additional context as nobel nominations are officially kept secret for 50 years.

The official noble prize website mentions - "Nominations are only made public 50 years after the nomination has taken place – so nominations for this year’s Nobel Prizes are a closely guarded secret. Any rumours regarding recent nominees are either just rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you’ll have to wait until then to find out." Mixmon (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Im inclined to remove that sentence. The citations provided all link back to this, which doesnt show Zubair as being part of the actual nominations shortlst. The ones shortlisted are :
 * Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya & Alexei Navalny
 * International Court of Justice
 * Harsh Mander & Karwan-e-Mohabbat
 * Ilham Tohti, Agnes Chow & Nathan Law
 * HRDAG & CANVAS
 * Zubair is mentioned only as an "other worthy candidate", but he isnt part of the actual list of nominees. Seems like a case of overexcited media reporting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ive removed the Times.com and Quint citation - Times does not mention nomination at all, and Quint source says they were named in the PRIO yearly shortlist, but never says they were nominated (which is accurate, they were mentioned as "others" but did not feature in the nominated names). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed the sentence entirely, the PRIO source (the primary source that published the list) didnt mention him as a nominee, and the Chenab TImes citation was him being nominated "according to reports". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The Time source clearly says "Below, a list of some of the favorites to win, based on nominations that were made public via Norwegian lawmakers, bookmakers’ odds, and a personal shortlist by the director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo." Time is a reliable source - what is it saying here? Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless, we could probably say that "it was widely reported that X and Y were amongst the favourites to be nominated...". I don't think that needs to be in the lead para though. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ill check if that can be reliably sourced to anything more than the Chenab Times. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see a few, including this reliable UK source Independent. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That also attributes to Time. IG we can take the wording I proposed below. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you and I have different interpretations of the sentence"based on nominations that were made public via Norwegian lawmakers, bookmakers’ odds, and a personal shortlist by the director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo" The way I read it, it says their list of likely winners is based on 1) nominations that were made public via Norwegian lawmakers, 2) bookmakers’ odds, and 3) a personal shortlist by the director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Thats Time's own list of who they think could win, not who was nominated. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a more accurate line could be "According to Time magazine, Zubair and his Alt News co-founder, Pratik Sinha, were among the favourites to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022"India Today attributes to TImes NDTV as well Hindu as well  Outlook as well  Hindustan Times as well Edit: Independent also sources it to Time. Most RS seem to attribute it to Time, IG we should too. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just attribute it there. I also note that fake news/misinformation site Opindia claims they were never short listed, which lends credence to the story, although of course we can never use that. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth is wrong

 * On First Line    - Mohammed Zubair (born 1988)
 * On right side box - Born	29 December 1983 (age 40) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.86.53.41 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tousif  ❯❯❯  Talk  06:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving Mohammed Zubair (journalist) to Mohammed Zubair (fact-checker)

 * 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: Not moved. There is consensus that enough RS call him a journalist to justify the current parenthetical. There is also consensus, albeit a very weak one, against Black Kite's proposal. (non-admin closure)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed Zubair (journalist) → Mohammed Zubair (fact-checker) – Mohammed Zubair is not a journalist,he don't claim himself one neither do he have a formal degree in journalism.He is a fact checker. Source: his own tweet https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/zubair-is-not-a-journalist-and-even-if-he-were-one-he-should-not-be-allowed-to-create-chaos-10957551.html Pyaaz Kachori (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Link to his own tweet where he cleared he is not a journalist. https://twitter.com/zoo_bear/status/1291416752971161601?t=jTjccJP6o7HR5fOoNtJnAw&s=19 Pyaaz Kachori (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There's a far easier and less contentious way to fix this. At the moment Mohammed Zubair redirects to Mohammad Zubair which is a disambiguation page, but everyone else on that dab page is called "Mohammad" (with an "a").  We do not have any other articles about people called Mohammed Zubair (with an "e").  So simply move this article to Mohammed Zubair and keep his entry on the disambiguation page, and drop a hat-note into this article with a link to the dab page. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That will be appropriate ,🙌 2409:4052:6E93:AAEE:49AE:FAAC:6565:CA9 (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think a degree in journalism is required in order for a person to be described as a journalist. It seems like a generic term for someone who reports information to the public. Wikipedia prefers to use broadly applicable terms for disambiguation (WP:NCPDAB). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone who don't have formal education in journalism,Someone who sham as journalist on odd day and when it comes to taking responsibility says "I'm not a journalist". Wikipedia specially mentioning that person as journalist in brackets highlighting, puts wikipedia's credibility on stake. Attaching his tweet as source again-https://x.com/zoo_bear/status/1291416752971161601?s=20 2409:4052:6E93:AAEE:49AE:FAAC:6565:CA9 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that the IP commenting above, rightly or wrongly and without evidence, wants to disparage the reputation of this person. They also inaccurately and incompletely quoted the tweet in question, which says "I am not a Journalist :)". Note the smiley, which I suggest is important – it clearly indicates that humour is involved in the comment. There is also a capital letter in "Journalist" in the tweet, which might also convey meaning (e.g., saying he is not an ordinary member of the formal journalism profession – Journalism with a capital 'J'). I also notice that the nom is a recently registered account with a history of reverted edits and warnings posted to their User talk page, some related to NPOV disputes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral independent reliable sources say that he is a journalist who is co-founder of a fact-checking service. They also say that he is being persecuted by the BJP:
 * The Economist describes him as "co-founder of a respected fact-checking service".30 June 2022,21 July 2022,29 August 2022
 * The Guardian describes him as a "Muslim journalist" and says that he is the "co-founder of a factchecking website".9 September 2023, 28 June 2022
 * Al Jazeera describes him as a "Muslim journalist" and says that he is the "co-founder of a factchecking website".28 June 2022,20 July 2022, 27 June 2022
 * BBC News describe him as "a leading fact-checker and journalist".20 July 2022
 * CNN describes him as a "Muslim journalist" and says that he is the "co-founder of a factchecking website".20 July 2022,28 June 2022
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that "journalist" is probably better than "fact-checker", but as I pointed out above, we don't actually need a disambiguator at all. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah let's beleive the so called "neutral media" and not the person himself? Wikipedia a joke. 2409:4085:3D89:DFBB:14FF:3F67:B5A4:6521 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Relist comment: Relisiting to develop consensus around Black Kite's spelling proposal. Bensci54 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 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.
 * Oppose move as proposed. Thanks @Toddy1 for the links. I wanted to present them as well, but hadn't had the time yet. I don't know if Mohammed and Mohammad are distinct enough, but if they're then we go with @Black Kite's alternative proposal — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Toddy1, who provided evidence from independent reliable sources. Also weak oppose using minor spelling variations of 'Mohammed' to indicate distinct topics. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the list of sources from Toddy1 showing sources use the term "Journalist" to describe Zubair. Not really behind Black Kite's suggestion, it's a very small spelling difference and the existing Mohammed Zubair as a redirect suggests people using 'e' over 'a' isn't that uncommon. The edit summary  from when it was created by Kautilya3 of "Can't treat each variation of "Muhammad" as a different name" is reasonable to me, so very, very weakly opposed to Black Kite's proposal.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In addition to the citations provided by, it seems that fact checking as an integral part of journalism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Fact checking is a part of JOURNALISM' so don't necessary an academic degree for journalism. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding alleged word infront of journalist.
Adding alleged word infront of journalist cuz he doesn't have any degree to prove this claim. Sak7340 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That is not a requirement for being a journalist. More to the point, Wikipedia uses the terminology from reliable sources which do call him a journalist.  Please read the discussion above (and others on this talk page about this).  Ravensfire  (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * edit conflict
 * As pointed out at Talk:Mohammed Zubair (journalist) a person does not need a degree in journalism to be described as a journalist. The word "journalist" is a generic term for someone who reports information to the public. Wikipedia prefers to use broadly applicable terms for disambiguation.


 * It is also important to note that Sak7340's repeated edits also (a) deleted the Nobel Prize nomination paragraph (which was supported by a citation) and (b) added the following uncited commentary to the lead: It's important to note that some of the facts presented may be misleading and biased, often targeting right-wing individuals. Zubair is known for being heavily trolled due to his left-wing views. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it was not a valid source. It's a fact that his Facts are biased I will attach citation. Sak7340 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Without a journalism degree, there may be concerns about the individual's ability to adhere to professional standards and principles of journalism, including accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. Additionally, without formal education in journalism, the individual may lack knowledge of industry standards and best practices, which could impact the quality and credibility of their reporting.
 * Therefore, it is reasonable to refer to someone without a journalism degree as an "alleged journalist" until they demonstrate a commitment to ethical journalism practices and establish themselves as credible sources of news and information. Sak7340 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, not how it works. Wikipedia uses the terms that sources use to describe things, and in this case, it's journalist. I understand that your view differs, but that's not how Wikipedia works.  Ravensfire  (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, articles are based on verifiable information and reliable sources. If someone claims to be a journalist but lacks evidence or credentials to support that claim, their status as a journalist may be described as "alleged" until sufficient evidence is provided. Without verifiable sources to confirm their status, Wikipedia editors may include language indicating that the individual's claim to be a journalist is not substantiated by available evidence.
 * Additionally, Wikipedia operates under a policy of notability, which means that content must be supported by reliable sources and significant coverage in independent, third-party publications. If a photo of the individual is included in a Wikipedia article, it must comply with Wikipedia's image use policy and be accompanied by appropriate sourcing and licensing information. Once an image is uploaded to Wikipedia, it becomes part of the public domain and cannot be deleted unilaterally.
 * Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, if someone's claim to be a journalist lacks substantiating evidence, their status may be described as "alleged" in the absence of verifiable sources. Additionally, any images included in Wikipedia articles must adhere to the site's image use policies and licensing requirements. Sak7340 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. The labels that Wikipedia uses are solely based on how they are described in reliable sources.  We as editors cannot put our on restrictions on who should or should not be called a journalist, that's called WP:OR.  Follow what the sources say - and please read the discussions above where this is explained.  And as you've continue to revert, this is being taken to WP:EWN.  Ravensfire  (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * edit conflict The argument that Sak7340 is using about needing a journalism degree to be a journalist is nonsensical. For example Boris Johnson did his university degree in classics at Oxford, and then pursued a career first as a journalist, and then as a politician. It would be stupid for Wikipedia to claim that Johnson was "alleged journalist" and an "alleged politician" because his degree was in classics, not journalism, and not politics. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Regarding the photograph that Sak7340 uploaded (c: File:Zubairlkfc.jpg) - editors do not have a right to appropriate images that they find on the internet. The image appears to be breach of copyright. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was uploaded by me and I have full rights of it. Sak7340 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to handle that on Commons, it was sourced from OpIndia which does not have anything on their site that indicates a compatible license. If you truly are the copyright owner, you can follow the instructions at c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team on how to confirm you are the copyright holder.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern, but it's important to clarify that the image in question was sourced from a reliable publication, OpIndia, which may indeed have a compatible license. However, I understand the need for proper verification of copyright ownership. In this case, I can confirm that I am the copyright holder of the image in question and am willing to follow the instructions outlined at c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team to confirm my ownership. Therefore, I respectfully oppose your assertion and request further review of the matter. Sak7340 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it's funny that there is a section of Nobel Peace Prize. It's turned out to be a PR by left lobby. Check this out.
 * https://www.timesnownews.com/india/altnewss-mohammed-zubair-and-pratik-sinha-were-never-nobel-peace-prize-favourites-times-now-exposes-biggest-pr-con-job-article-94709007 Sak7340 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The correct thing to have done was to contribute constructively, and add to the article using the source, summarising what the source said about the claim that he had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Add the reference from the Nobel Prize website. They always mentions those nominees in their website every year, but when I went there I found nothing related to his nominee. Sak7340 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A source quoting OpIndia which is deprecated for significant issues with fact-checking and accuracy is not the best source in the world. At a minimum, attribution would be needed and a far more balanced presentation of the information. I'm at 3 reverts and won't risk an edit-war block, so cannot revert this POV edit at the moment.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I want to clarify that there are no quotes from OpIndia in the content. I have thoroughly checked the original source that is the nobel prize website, and there is no mention of the individual's name. Therefore, other sources raise serious questions. I understand your concern about maintaining a balanced presentation and avoiding edit wars. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to discuss them. Sak7340 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have thoroughly checked the original source that is the nobel prize website, and there is no mention of the individual's name. Yeah, that's going way in the wrong direction. The article (and the source) does not claim he won the Nobel prize.  The Nobel committee doesn't have short lists, that's something that outside groups do. The article AND the source both clearly attribute the claim to Time.  The source completely supports the material you removed.  Sigh, given you're just talking past the points being raised, this is not a productive conversation.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to this claim, he was a nominee and nominee do features in that website. Kindly go and check. Sak7340 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later." That's from the nomination page. You didn't actually search for nominees in 2022, did you? Just saw the archive page and said Yup!  Put in Peace Prize and 2022 and you get ... nothing.  No names at all, because that's the policy of the Nobel Committee.  Regardless, Wikipedia goes with what reliable sources say, and that paragraph that you continue to edit-war (even as you're exhorting others not to do so, so funny that is) to remove is backed by absolutely solid sources.  You cannot use sourcing as a reason to remove that paragraph.  WP:UNDUE, maybe, but start that as it's own topic and don't remove it until there is an actual consensus to do so.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While it's true that the Nobel Committee keeps nominations confidential for 50 years. SO, the question is then how other sources got this confidential report? All the sources says that, it was reported by TIME magazine. Can you please share that article here of TIME in which his name was mentioned? Sak7340 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed to add the section of Pro pakistani slogan and terrorist attack case in a cafe in this section in which his facts and claims were false.
In this section I propose to add information in which his facts were misleading and false. Like the one in which he told that no pakistani slogans were raised in assembly of Karnataka and a terrorist attack in a cafe, which he claimed as a normal cylinder blast. This sparked controversy and its a very serios topic too. Also, he still claims that his facts were right. This shows some of his facts are misleading and biased. There are multiple sources available on internet. So, add this topic too, its one of the most controversial cases in his life. 2402:8100:26E1:592F:F0B2:E112:AC92:65B (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide your suggested text below, complete with citations to reliable sources. Also you need to tell us where your text should go in the article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)