Talk:Bulli Bai case

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
None of the significant issues have been addressed after six weeks; closing as unsuccessful

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that app Bulli Bai was used to create, an online mock auction of prominent women, to harass them? Source: DW
  • ALT1: ... that creators of the Bulli Bai app, for an online mock auction of Muslim women, had used Sikh names to mislead people? Source: "Names related to the Sikh community were used to make it look like these Twitter handles had been created by persons from that community," the police release issued in the evening said. The women who were targeted were Muslim, so there was a possibility that it could have created "enmity between two communities" and led to "breach of public peace", it said. [1] [2]
  • ALT2: ... that members of the alt-right neo-Nazi groups, created the Bulli Bai app, for an online mock auction of Indian Muslim women? Source: "Police have linked the creators of both apps to the online alt-right group “Trads” that derives inspiration from neo-Nazi online movements. Vice
  • ALT3: ... that the Bulli Bai app, was used for an online mock auction of Indian Muslim women? Source: "Police have linked the creators of both apps to the online alt-right group “Trads” that derives inspiration from neo-Nazi online movements. Vice
  • Reviewed: Exempt

Created by Venkat TL (talk) and Ainty Painty (talk). Nominated by Venkat TL (talk) at 08:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

• Comment Not reviewing it right now. Just asking if the lede could be more precise? Can citations be taken out and the lede be reconstructed. Few things in the body go uncited. I don't think the names of accused should be bolded this way? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• I do not think this belongs at the main page - NOTCENSORED applies but this is way too vile. Thanks for creating the article! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Added Alt 2 Venkat TL (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Venkat TL I'm not sure why you still don't seem to understand that you're pushing a POV. For ALT2, the article makes it clear that it is alleged the group was responsible. I'm almost tempted to hold a discussion at DYK to see if all of your current POV nominations can be closed as failed. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• If you are seeing an issue with the DYK you can say so. Added ALT3. Venkat TL (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Adding an icon here to clarify that there are POV issues that need to be addressed before the nomination can be approved (note that I am not reviewing the article, I am just leaving the icon here for clarity). Pinging SL93 to have a second look at ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Narutolovehinata5 I would outright fail the nomination. The entire article only shows one side for a case that apparently hasn't went to court yet. Editors have continuously told the nominator to not push a POV, but they won't stop. I'm honestly sick of it. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Noted. Unless the POV concerns are properly addressed the nomination probably won't go anywhere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:Narutolovehinata5 I will update the article. Need time. Hopefully the more updates will come on the case. Whatever is in reliable sources has been updated. SL93 is only doing personal attacks without any constructive or collaborative editing. After it gets updated would need fresh eyes.Venkat TL (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the WT:DYK discussion, multiple editors (not just SL93) raised concerns about your articles, and it wasn't limited to just this one but the Price of Modi nomination as well. If any of your nominations are to be approved, all of them need to be rewritten to better meet NPOV. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5, lets do this step by step. We are all volunteers. Why this misuse of "ALL" and "ANY". The reiviewers in good faith should review the article and DYK at hand. When I am ready. I object to your strange conditions on DYK. Venkat TL (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Those were not my comments. The ones who made those comments about POV (apart from SL93) were Gatoclass, Joseph2302, Theleekycauldron, and Andrew Davidson. If you have any concerns about the POV concerns, it would be better to ask them since they were the ones who noted those. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5 and now you have pinged a bunch of editors. Please remove your comments not related to this article and this DYK to WT:DYK in the existing thread. You have my permission to move my comments. I request Narutolovehinata5 and everyone reading this comment to keep your replies focussed on improvements of this article and this DYK. Venkat TL (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Alt2 is false. They are not neo-Nazi group. At least there are no convincing sources. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment the hooks are misleadin. There app was used to harass Indian Muslim women, which is an important detail. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Loew Galitz "Muslim" added into the hooks. Venkat TL (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Venkat TL, 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) 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

@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. 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)@Venkat TL: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)

@Venkat TL:: 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)