Talk:Anu Malik

Controversy

While I think there is a common consensus amongst most editors to keep this information, and that removing it would be considered whitewashing, I think a clear consensus should be defined to stop all the edit warring that is happening on this page. In my opinion, I think it is pretty important to mention the sexual assault allegations since they have affected his career (ie. Indian Idol) and not mentioning so would violate our WP:NPOV policy. I think they are given due weight in the article (maybe header could be changed) and it does not overpower the positive aspects of his career. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: They're allegations. Serious negative BLP at that. It's not white-washing to remove unproven canards. Suggest opening discussion at BLPN-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the whole controversy section should be removed as it is against Neutral Point Of View(NPOV) Policy of Wikipedia. One can also add 'APPRECIATION' section and can appreciate him more than needed. Such kind of sections have been clearly added due to person hate, as far as it seems to me. Moreover, adding about the sexual allegation imposed on Anu Malik, which are just allegations and nothing have been proved so far neither the matter has been dragged to court, are completely unethical. An editor added a vague line that an Assistant Producer of Indian Idol said that producers were aware of his behaviour! If already a line about sexual allegation was added, was it necessary to be added? Hasn't it been added to spoil the subject's image? If so many unnecessary lines were added, then what was problem in my addition of Sonu Nigam's claim that he has seen from his eyes those SMS coming on Anu Malik's mobile? I had also provided a source for this!

I think such kind of defaming portions should not exist on Wikipedia page. nkupad talk

Ignoring controversies is anything BUT WP:NPOV by virtually anyones definition. The accusations of harrassement should be included as they have had a real impact on his career in that he left/was let go as a judge on Indian Idol. That's not something that can be ignored / whitewashed as Nkupad and friend have been trying to do for quite some time. I can see keeping only the first and last sentence of the current para - basically here's what happened and the result. Ravensfire (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As for removing the entire section as suggested by Nkupad, that would clearly not be appropriate or in line with NPOV; both paragraphs are well-sourced and relevant. I agree that removing everything between "[...] as a part of the Me Too movement in India." and "Following the public backlash [...]" would work, though, so as to avoid having too much detail there. --bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What was the need to remove the sourced content stating Sameer Anjaan and Sonu Nigam have supported Anu Malik. Wasn't it an important fact? If unproved allegations don't violate any Wikipedia's policy, isn't it important to mention that Anu Malik was supported by some popular celebrities, who have been evidence of the act? The pair of Ravensfire and Bonadea is ready to listen to no one! nkupad talk

The intent was to reduce the section to a bare minimum of information. If the accusations had no impact on Malik, that section shouldn't be in the article, but there was an impact on his life - being forced out as a judge. That's significant and needs to mentioned in the article with the minimum context as these are just accusations at this point. If we've going to start adding other people's views on the accusations, that's a dangerous road to go down and starts to push BLPPUBLIC boundaries. Yes, Malik has had supporters and if you note, that wasn't removed because of sourcing reasons. We can't include just views supporting Malik if there are also views that don't support him and have also gotten mention in WP:RS. Nobody has added his nephew pretty strong denouncement [1] and if all this section covers is minimal, it shouldn't. If it goes into more detail, then we have to follow all policies. I've rephrased what is there slightly to make his denial of the accusations more prominent.

Aside from wiping out the section completely (which isn't going to get much support), what are your suggestions that portray a balanced view of this matter? Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire, my suggestion is to also to mention the support of Sameer and Sonu Nigam to Anu Malik, in order to neutralize the article. That's all! Nkupad talk

So let's also mention Amaal Malik castigating Anu Malik, in order the neutralize the article. His statement has easily gotten more coverage than the two you mention. Neutral is good so you'll surely agree to this, right? Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think nkupad is right in this regard. Mentioning of the support of Sameer and Sonu Nigam is important. While, Amaal Malik did not castigate him literally, and only said that he doesn't consider Anu Malik as a part of his family as it was earlier evident that they had a family tussle going on much before the outbreak of this controversy. Sonu Nigam has said that he has from his own eyes seen the recent regular well-wishing messages coming on Anu Malik's mobile from a women who has alleged Malik. So if a women is sending well-wishing message to a person regularly, and then suddenly comes out in public saying that she was sexually harassed many years ago, wouldn't you call it a case of publicity stunt or personal grudge? So don't you think it is essential to mention this fact? I am disheartened from the fact that some editors are keen on making such an edit which will seem to convict Anu Malik for the allegation, without providing the aspect of other side of the coin. We are not here to convict someone, but to only present a balanced point of view. Everyone's edit has essence. Moreover it is also needed to mention that two allegations were anonymous and these allegations were made under Mee Too Movement, in order to consolidate the information ethicaleditor1234 talk

• This is a BLP. We are not going to throw in a bunch of people and their YouTube videos who somehow or other "speak up" for someone: that's ridiculous. Ethicaleditor1234, I don't know what you are trying to argue in this comment here, but "don't you think blah blah" sounds like you think this is a discussion forum--it is not. The support of Sameer seems reasonable since he says he was there (if that's indeed what he says). Other random support is uncalled for (and this whole Sonu Nigam story you're telling here is very confusing, and strikes me as irrelevant and gossipy). And that the victim says this happened when she was 15 is of course highly relevant, and this certainly should not be removed. Finally, your last sentence, I have no idea what you mean with "consolidate the information". I do not see how the Me Too movement or the anonymity of two of the accusers is relevant--but I am not opposed to its insertion as long as it is done in a neutral (and grammatically correct) way: this was neither, and "as a part of the Me Too movement", which I found already in there and which I then removed, was weird. The accusation was "part of" a movement? And even if you rewrite that, were the accusations somehow linked to or prompted by it? It seems more like its function was to somehow lessen the importance of the allegations. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• There is no support in any of the sources for the claim that allegations were made anonymously. People not being named in the papers does not equal them being anonymous. Thus, it would be against Wikipedia policy to publish such a claim. That it was during the Me Too movement's first active phrase and can be seen as part of that is not entirely irelevant - thousands and thousands of victims were empowered by that movement to try to get at least some justice, but I agree with Drmies that it sounds as if the attempt here is to discredit the allegations as well as the movement by using that kind of phrasing. Maybe it would be worth a mention in the article about the Me Too movement, rather than here. --bonadea contributions talk 16:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As Ethicaleditor1234 is pointing, mentioning of Sonu Nigam's support is essential because he has said that he has from his eyes seen the decent SMS coming on Anu Malik's mobile from one of the women who alleged him for misbehavior. Sonu Nigam is a big fame and his statement is not gossipy because he is acting like an evidence in this case. Nkupad talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicaleditor1234 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. When you pretend to be two people in violation of Wikipedia's policies, you do need to keep track of which account you are currently logged in from. See also Marmion VI:XVII. --bonadea contributions talk 15:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Whoops ... Ravensfire (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, whatever... just forget it! Embarrassment doesn't come with invitation. Just give a thought over whatever i have recommended. Ethicaleditor1234

WP:DENY sockpuppets of Nkupad / Ethicaleditor1234
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is the mentioning of allegations allowed in BLP? I don't think so. Read WP:NPOV Victor2v98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Nothing in there about not allowing well-sourced text reporting on allegations in a neutral manner, which is what we have here. --bonadea contributions talk 16:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC) My objection is that there are a lot of allegations mentioned- from plagiarism to sexual allegation. That portion should be reduced to a reasonable limit, otherwise it seem to disturb a balance. Victor2v98 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Sorry for interference by a new editor. I want to say its sad to see how Anu Malik has been alleged without giving any proof. Is an allegation without any proof is suficient to destroy a legendary career? This can also happen with our father, brothers or son! We need to see that 2 complains have been made anonymously and their identity hasn't been checked yet. While one has been from Shweta Pandit, in which lyricist Sameer said that he was present in the audition. While for the rest one allegation, Sonu Nigam in support of Anu Malik has claimed that he has seen the regular well-wishing messages coming on Malik's mobile from that woman. So what does this indicate? Is media trial ethical here? If there will be any case, let the court decide, we shouldn't act as Judges ourself. Mentioning of allegation in that way is immoral. Abhinamukunda Nope, we go by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here, not by admirers of the person who want to whitewash the article or who prefer to believe the person's friends; we don't care about things like that here, we go by what reliable independent sources say. Please provide the source that claims that two complaints are anonymous - as already discussed above, that is not said anywhere in the current sources. --bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC) For Alisha-Anu Malik molestation case in 90s, the matter was dragged to court, where Anu Malik was given clean-chit. Anu Malik, in return slapped Alisha Chinai with 2crore rupee defamation case, after which Alisha Chinai had to apologize to Anu Malik. And after all this, Alisha started once again working with Anu Malik despite of putting such serious allegations. And now she comes with changed color again? Hence, that latest addition clearly can hold the intention of personal grudge by Alisha. Untrusted facts should be eliminated. If you all are keen to defame Anu Malik, then i am here to defend him! Bonadea simply holds unjustified negative opinion on the subject, but i will keep neutralizing him. Abhinamukunda (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Untrusted facts" - well, we do have reliable sources, and the information has been pruned down to a bare, factual minimum. What is the policy based reason for removing the sourced text? --bonadea contributions talk 19:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The controversy section seems to be full of bias against Anu Malik. What is the need of mentioning "Sona Mohapatra criticized commission's decision"? Is this Page based on Sona Mohapatra. I am saddened by the ways the Wikipedia's 'neutrality rules have been violated blatantly by an established editor of Wikipedia, who clearly seem to misuse that power, just to satiate the personal bias, even when the accused has been already exonerated by National Commission of Women, a statutory body in India. Gyaansevak (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for him being exonerated by the NCW – when did that happen? I can't find any sources more recent than mid-January, when they closed the case due to a lack of evidence, but they explicitly did not exonerate Malik then, so presumably you refer to something else. Regarding the mention of other people, would you agree that it is out of proportion to mention Sameer Anjaan and Sonu Nigam as well? (Strictly speaking, the reference of Nigam should probably be removed as it only says that he "reportedly" stated this and "apparently" claimed that...) I will improve the sourcing for the fact you mention above. Finally, please remember to always assume good faith of your peers here. That is a central policy of Wikipedia. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 18:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea, in case if you are not able to get it from the articles, there is a full public youtube video of Sonu Nigam (who has told to have seen the regular recent well-wishing messages of one of the accusers). I do understand that #MeToo Movement has been a much needed movement which has taught the bloody molesters to learn to behave! But you need to see that some innocent are also caught in a trap, without submission of any proof. Each and every allegation against Anu Malik has a strong counter to it! Even he has received supoort from some Female Singers as well(whose support I haven't mentioned till yet, because it will over-enlarge controversy section). Gyaansevak (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019

Please add the allegations made by Neha Bhasin, Sona Mohapatra, and two other women from Mehboob Studio. Also, while you mentioned the support that he received from Sonu Malik and Sameer, it might be fairer to also include the fight that Sona Mohapatra and her supporters (most recent Abhay Deol) has put up against him for his alleged predatory behavior. Braburningfeminist (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing and neutrality

With regard to this edit I am at a loss to understand exactly what it is about the phrase "but clarifying that it could be reopened" (where "it" is "the sexual harassment case") that is biased. It would be misleading to the point of dishonesty to imply that the case was closed once and for all, so the information has to be there. The question is what it is in the phrasing that is biased; how do you suggest it be changed without removing the information? On the other hand, "Female singer Hema Sardesai came out in support of Anu Malik, pointing out at the absurdity of the accusers." is biased in two distinct ways: it implies that the gender of the singer is relevant to her opinions and statements, and it flat out asserts that the accusers were absurd ("point out" is used to state something that is considered to be true.)

In addition, the source (here) does not support the content. It is simply a copy of a long Instagram post made by Sardesai (no discussion or analysis by any independent person, only a brief introductory paragraph and then the primary text), and she doesn't make any comments on the accusations. She says... well, it is hard to understand just what she says, but she seems to be basing her argumentation on the fact that Malik's music is wonderful and singing it has led her to great success. (That is indeed coming out in support of him, but has nothing to do with any criticism against him). She also seems to say that because she has previously said she wouldn't compromise her principles, it follows that Malik must be a good person (though that is really rather unclear). And finally she says that the accusers should have spoken out earlier (see victim blaming), and that other music directors are not good people. What makes this source meet WP:RS for a WP:BLP? --bonadea contributions talk 11:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a Court case of Sexual Harassment should be discussed here at all.

No need to add, "it may be reopened", or "revision petition may be made", because it's purely a personal matter of the persons.

In an Encyclopedia, the desired format for presenting these kind of informations should be, in my humble Openion:

"The case(s) of Sexual Harassment were lodged against the [Person] in the [Year].

And Judgement, if relevant.

A link of the Judgement can also be provided as a Citation, for the persons interested.

But saying anything more would be likely to influence people, like "pointed out", or "may be reopened", etc.

What do you say? જય જલારામ (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding revert of Edit

My edit was reverted by @Ponyo, and I was told by Wikipedia team to discuss it here.

So here am I.

• I agree that YouTube, an unreliable source should not be cited, but there are other important facts I added, which were reverted by him too.

They are:

1. "Legendary Singer Mohommad Rafi", not "Singer Mohommad Rafi".
2. Relatives: Maternal Uncle Hasrat Jaipuri, and Dabbu Malik's Son Armaan Malik.
3. Alma Mater, and Education: He indeed has an M.A. from Mithibai.
4. Grammatical Corrections: "Laayegi", not "Laye Gi". In Hindi, this is the correct Grammar. Ask any Hindi speaker how its written.
5. I just added that "Moh Moh ke Dhaage" was written by Varun Grover.

All these Edits of mine were reverted. I request to Restore those edits, and at least warn/ inform before reverting any edits directly. જય જલારામ (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, the Anu Malik (person of this page himself) has described that Incident in the YouTube video I cited.

And I specifically presented it in that manner, "Anu Malik, in a recent interview..."

So, I don't think any unreliability can be casted on the words of the [Person himself] . જય જલારામ (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As I noted on my talk page when you left a message there: "Credible is not the bar for inclusion of content in a biography articles. The information must be relevant, supported by reliable sources and be worded neutrally. In addition, no content should be added to the infobox this is not specifically supported by reliably sourced article content (see the instructions at Template:Infobox person)." Because you made the changes in bulk they were caught up in the revert of the unsourced content; these typographical and linking changes can be restored.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC).

So I've restored the reversal.

Now you may remove what goes against Wikipedia Rules. જય જલારામ (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

All content added to biography articles must be sourced to reliable sources and, per WP:BURDEN, are not to be restored without adequate sourcing. You are adding unsourced, poorly sourced, WP:PUFFERY and pure original research to the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I said "Now you may remove what goes against Wikipedia Rules."

Mine was bulk Edit, so your previous reversal removed material statements too. Which as we discussed, can be restored.

Now i reverted that bulk edit revert, and you may remove what's unreliable etc.

🤷‍♂️ જય જલારામ (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I know what you said, but it doesn't reflect Wikipedia policy. You can only restore what is supported by reliable sources; I already linked to WP:BURDEN, which applies.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

So we can do 2 things now.

1. You make an Edit, and restore what doesn't violate the rules.

2. Let me make an Edit without the YouTube link, and Javed Akhtar.

I'm not doing the 2nd one, because I'm busy, also mobile edit is subject to limitations. Eg.: I dont have "insert" option in mobile edit.

So I would like to ask you to restore what you find "reliable", and as per rules.

Thanks. જય જલારામ (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Or you could just follow our policies regarding restoring disputed content; as linked previously, WP:BURDEN states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (emphasis original).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about rules Sir.

I'm new here.

Also, I'm not as serious Editor on Wikipedia as you.

Since you're also an Editor, and well versed with rules, you can verify details added in my edit, and restore them selectively (specific content restoration, I don't know if that's possible or not) - was my intent.

Let me know if this edit cannot be reverted content wise, and if I have to make a new edit with citations. જય જલારામ (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)