Talk:Rana Ayyub

Regarding edit revert
User:Tayi Arajakate, regarding your edit revert here, could you explain how it could be a WP:BLP violation? I feel like the section is well-sourced. Thanks,  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 08:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it appears quite partisan. In the edit, you condensed the section regarding Career into a subsection, pushed the section regarding Awards and recognition to the bottom of the article and decided to create a new section prominently featuring "Fake news". This in of itself is a BLP violation regardless of sourcing.
 * The sourcing for the new section is however poor as well, it makes use of The Times of India for a "fact check" which is not considered to a reliable for controversial information especially those related to the government. This was followed by what's referred to as "misleading" in the cited sources but changed to "misinformation" in the article. And ends with a police case against her for "fake news", it's placement under the same section implies that the police is correct when none of the secondary sources cited for it themselves say so.  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, while I don't contend having bias towards/against the subject, mere partisanship doesn't necessarily warrant preclusion. You've stated that the Times of India should not be used for controversial information related to the government; while I don't contest that, the article in question clearly lays down their methodology of fact check, and the information they provided can indeed be verified by the ABP news article further linked in it. (Later update: It is to be noted that Times of India is still a Newspaper of record). Further, I wouldn't contend it to be 'controversial' in any way. Regarding my switching of 'misinformation,' with 'misleading,' I feel that warrants an edit correcting it, and not a revert. Now, the police case part is strictly framed as an allegation by the police, and nowhere does it imply it to be categorically correct. The very first opening line clearly talks about the accused ' allegedly sharing false tweets.' Regards,  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172;  09:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC) (ping)
 * , non-neutral edit do need to be precluded especially with regards to BLPs. Neutrality itself being determined by the degree and variety of coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter what your own opinions on the subject is.
 * Reading through the TOI article, it fact checks the tweet by saying "the labourers were lockdown violators who were punished for violating guidelines", while Rana Ayyub says the same thing, despite this TOI has qualified it as "fake news". There is a reason TOI is not considered to be generally reliable.
 * Most of these are regarding tweets to begin with which don't have due weight for inclusion, it might if this were about her journalism and received more sustained coverage or if it was something that was persistent. If you read the policy on BLP, this is exactly the kind of sensationalism that is to be avoided in articles. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nowhere does the TOI article or the adjacent ABP article claim that the men being punished are 'labourers,' that's what Rana's tweet said. Spreading of misinformation/misleading information isn't solely confined to journalism; just because they're tweets doesn't necessarily imply they don't have due weight. LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 12:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC) (ping)"
 * , I see the difference, the TOI article or the caption in ABP doesn't mention them as labourers. That still doesn't explicitly disprove the claim. Tweets are not publications in newspapers and don't have similar oversight, this at best is a gotcha over a possible inaccuracies in a tweet. I'd suggest taking this to BLP noticeboard to get a third opinion, since we don't agree regarding due weight. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC) "Alright.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 14:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC) As per the third opinion here, I'm doing another edit but toning down the excessive 'partisan' parts, feel feel free to chime in and discuss it further. :)  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172;  07:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)"

You have just re-pasted the same section. That third opinion doesn't appear very substantive and it is still excessive and partisan. I'll post a more detailed account of the issues with the edit on the noticeboard, you should have pinged me there when you decided to open a section. Btw, please stop using block quotes in replies, it messes up the formatting. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC) I'm still waiting for the account, man.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 14:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Buddy, I've addressed your each and every issue of yours in the talk page. You had issues with my switching of 'misinformation' with 'misleading,' and I invited you to make a further edit resolving them. You claimed Times of India wasn't reliable, I rebutted pointing it out as a Newspaper of Record. You had issue with my moving the sections around, and I reverted it completely. You asked for a third opinion, fair enough, and you receive one which you didn't agree with and arbitrarily decide it as excessive and partisan, and now you're ghosting here. I've done everything that can be done to address your concerns now. Thanks.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 19:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't though, my primary concern is that the so called "fake news" is over a couple tweets and none of this has due weight for inclusion.
 * The Times of India, not being a reliable source is not my claim but community consensus. Adding in a later edit to an old comment of your that it is a "newspaper of record" is not a "rebuttal". The only thing it has going for it is that it's an old newspaper but it does not have a reputation for reliability. This is a BLP and such sources should be avoided here.
 * The third opinion itself said that it was excessive and did not appear to be neutrally written, but also said that some mention could be added. The problem is they didn't provide any specifics so I commented on it that it wasn't very substantive. But you have disregarded it anyways and just re-added the same section with a minor word change. What more do you expect me to say? It's not my fault that this didn't receive any further comments on the noticeboard, you didn't bother to argue further when I presented my argument there either. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 00:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Subsection too big/Detailed
Does the "The Gujarat sting operation" subsection have to be this long and detailed? feel like it detracts from the rest of the article. We also already have an article for the book at here, don't think we need headings for the book's reviews/criticism/reception in this article too. I think we should reduce that section.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 08:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this is an article about a prominent Indian journalist. -Soham321 (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've declined the speedy since the assertion of Ayyub winning an award, paired with this article, was enough to where she would pass speedy criteria. That said, this does need some editing for tone since phrases like "hard hitting piece" come across a little non-neutral. I don't think that this was intentional, but it does need to be addressed. This also needs more sourcing that is independent of Ayyub and in reliable sources, as this is very light on the sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added some links and done a little copyedit but for major improvements it's back to . Soham, you mentioned a category on your talk page but haven't added it to the article... (now un-watching and letting it be) Bazj (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP issues
Removed edits that marked articles as "speculative", since this is an opinion, reverted edit that removed "to protest how the magazine was handling sexual harassment charges directed against its founder and editor-in-chief Tarun_Tejpal" since it is anyway mentioned in the source. Reverted edit that changed the word pulling to speculation in "Citing several incidents, including the pulling of Ayyub's article from the Daily News and Analysis's website, a July 2014 editorial in the New York Times commented:" since the sourced article does indeed mention "pulling" not "speculation".Adarsh liberal (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The continuous disruptions by few editors whose edits are confined only to this biographic page is reported. The biography of a freelancer journalist known for her speculative writing is being assigned to a known media house, NDTV. The factual accuracy of most of her writings were revealed subsequently through court verdicts or by police investigations. In a biographic material, both pros and cons, famous and infamous details associated with the individual is to be represented. Before performing edits controversial contents are to be discussed in the talk page, and consensuses should be reached. Ipoll7 (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Removed:
 * Words like "award-winning". See WP:PUFFERY.
 * Words like "speculative". See WP:NPOV -- unless a reliable source directly states this, do not add it back.
 * Things like "Rana Ayyub wrote X, but Y happened". See WP:SYNTHESIS. Same as above -- unless a reliable source mentions this, do not add it back.
 * Things like "Rana Ayyub wrote X [Reference: Rana Ayyub's article]". See WP:PRIMARY. Unless X was discussed in other reliable sources, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.
 * Uncited material. See WP:RS.
 * utcursch &#124; talk 23:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019
Please change Rana has previously been critical of the BJP in general To Rana has been critical of the BJP in general because there is no citation that confirms that Rana is not critical of BJP now. Stoic85 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Melmann 12:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC) ahdhjkhajhjdjkfjdhsfjsdhjkfhjsdkjkfshjfhsjkd

Add more data by SC
It should be added that SC made a remark proving that her book is inadmissible as evidence and faulty. Source - [1 ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geno12 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Auction apps and Tek Fog
why are you removing the line about Auction apps and Tek Fog. She was the prime target of the operation and had received maximum amount of hate messages. Please restore my edits back. Venkat TL (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * you have in no way linked this to her. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In 2022, members of the Neo Nazi inspired alt right groups had created Bulli Bai, an app for fake online auction of Muslim women in India with intention to denigrate and harass the minorities. Ayyub and several prominent women journalists in India were targeted. They were also targeted with thousands of hate messages by the secret app Tek Fog used by BJP. The app was used to spread right wing propaganda online.


 * As you can see. I did link. Feel free to expand if you want, but why are you removing relavant information? --Venkat TL (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said, you did not make it clear. But if you think you did, you can add it back. I won’t revert again. I’m not in a dispute with you and can live with it. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @GorgeCustersSabre alright. I was just being extra cautious. Of late, I have been finding my additions regularly reverted and I did not want to start another revert war, so I raised this thread. With your confirmation, I will now add it back. Thank you for the quick replies. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Venkat TL, thanks for being gentle and collegial. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The last sections has been written based on a primary source. The Vice article is an op-ed and the claim of a neo-Nazi alt-right group called "trads" being behind the app is not backed up anywhere else. As per the policies on Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources and Wikipedia:No_original_research, this section may be replaced with a better source on the same content since the investigation has proceeded to a point where the primary suspect has been arrested:

In 2022, a Mumbai-based man had created Bulli Bai, an app for fake online auction of Muslim women in India. Ayyub and several prominent women journalists in India were targeted.

Further, request a source to be added for Tek Fog.

Missing info on court cases and investigations
The article does not mention important information on criminal cases and investigations against Rana. Request adding information on the following cases:

1. Money laundering: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/assets-worth-177-crore-linked-to-journalist-rana-ayyub-attached/article38409631.ece

2. Provocation with intent to cause riot (among other charges): https://www.news18.com/news/india/fir-against-twitter-journalists-for-flaring-communal-sentiments-over-ghaziabad-attack-on-muslim-man-3852803.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:30AB:AB7:75DF:69AA:4248:8F (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Dubious content related to Tek Fog
The stories by The Wire regarding Tek Fog now have been withdrawn as their veracity was dubious. Please remove. 223.190.86.144 (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They have not been "withdrawn". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thwy absolutely have been withdrawn. The wikipedia article for tek fog says so, with plenty of aources from the wire. Shameful that this obviously nonsensical story is stil put up as fact 2 years down the line. 119.42.59.98 (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing source for Bulli Bai
There is no source for "neo-Nazi inspired alt right groups" being behind Bulli Bai. The creator has been arrested by the police and does not appear to have any link to Nazis. The only article mentioning this is a blog on Vice published by a Pakistani author. A blog/ op ed is not a reliable source as per Wkipedia's guidelines 119.42.59.98 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)