Talk:Fatima Sheikh

Facts

Any hard evidence from phule timeline that gives any reference to the so called fatima's existence. Starlordnikhil (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC) There is no Fatima Sheikh in existence.This is Dilip Mandal's imagination. He has admitted to doing so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:13:F09D:84C0:A919:EB4F:5AD5 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) (WP:NOTAFORUM)

There are no historical facts...

There are no historical facts or evidences that suggests/refers/includes anything about Fatima sheikh's existence or anything about Fatima sheikh work. There is no historic, Present link of Fatima sheikh with Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule at all. There is no muslim/Islamic involvement of any kind in woman's and Dalits education efforts of phule couple. The historic events of phule couple are well documented and preserved by government and mali (OBC) community of India no such person or event as Fatima sheikh is ever refered or suggested in it. Some facts and historic events of phule couple 1) first school for girls education was started in bhide wada ( note - tatyasaheb bhide was brahmin). 2) Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule had never ever taken refuge in any Islamic community or Islamic household in fear of persecution from society. 3) Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule had very strong hindu beliefs Mahatam phule had written and publish many powada(poems) about chhatrapati shivaji maharaj. 4) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had referred Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule many times in their speeches, writings, interviews, published articles, letters etc. But non of them have any person or event or location called Fatima sheikh. This Fatima sheikh is fictional character created by authoritarian left wing hegemony to defame and undervalue hinduism especially OBC people.

Fatima sheikh?? Starlordnikhil (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)(WP:NOTAFORUM)

Death

If she "was", that means she is dead, which I can guess from her being an 1800s woman. But why is there no information on her death? If theres no date, there should at least be a (cited) statement that her death date is unknown or debated. GeraldWL 07:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)(WP:NOTAFORUM)

Recent update

Dilip Mandal has admitted to creation of the fake narrative of Fatima Sheikh here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.223.139.155 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (twitter-based discussion)

Dilip Mandal

A certain Dilip Mandal has claimed on Twitter about "creating" Fatima Sheikh out of "thin air" in his 2019 article for The Print and the article has been temporarily retracted pending investigation. However, such claims should not guide our editorial processes since all of our sources predate his article incl. one from 1991! Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:Adding further

https://x.com/Profdilipmandal/status/1877357452020093270 2405:201:6830:9856:6DD0:77:9D97:1DD6 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

On sentence in one book of the person being involved in teaching, and one 'photo' that looks more like a hand drawn image!

Those are rather low bars for scholarship and evidence . here now for a person to be qualified as real, aren't they!

I think the article should be nominated for deletion barring some kind of conclusive evidence begin presented. 2405:201:6830:9856:6DD0:77:9D97:1DD6 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)(twitter-based discussion)

Sheikh's photograph

In 2023, Reeta Ramamurthy Gupta published Savitribai Phule : Her Life, Her Relationships, Her Legacy, a historical fiction that reimagines Phule and her comrades in their milieu. She notes that barring the letter mentioned by Thiru (1991) and the following evidence (f.n. 13 of the Prologue), there is no concrete proof corroborating the existence of Fatima Sheikh:

There is a picture in Krantijyoti Savitribai Jyotirao Phule by M.G. Mali (Majestic Publishing House, 1980) labelled 'Savitribai Phule and Fatima Sheikh with two students from their school'. In that picture, beside Savitribai is seated another woman, while a third woman is standing behind them, dressed in white clothes. According to historian Dr Ganesh Raut, this third woman could be Saguna Kshirsagar. But where is the proof that this picture is authentic?

Fortunately, Dr Mali has written a note below the photograph (developed from a negative that is over a hundred years old). The source of this picture dates back to Savitribai's photograph printed in Majur, a paper published from Pune many years ago—somewhere between 1924 and 1930. R.N. Lad was the editor of the paper at the time. D.S. Jogde also worked as the editor for some time. Dr Mali got this picture from D.S. Jogde.

According to Dr Mali, 'A rare photograph was printed in the famous book written by a missionary named Lokande. That photograph and the picture printed in Majur look identical. Savitribai's picture was painted on the basis of the photograph. Eknath Palkar of Pune too had some negatives. Jogde got this negative from Palkar. From that negative, the pictures of Savitribai Phule and Fathima Shaikh became available.'

Upd Edit (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Savitribai Phule and Fatima Sheikh with two students from their school in front; the woman standing behind Phule and Sheikh is unidentified.

If this pic is authentic, we should absolutely use it instead. Actually, per WP-rules, we have to, since the other is non-free. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This picture is not authentic. The same book's 2011 edition doesn't mention it as a photograph generated from 100 year old negative either. It's a sketch with no source or authenticity. Midoreigh (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to quote reliable sources that describe the photo as unauthentic. Original research is disallowed. Here is BBC's report on the photograph that reiterates Gupta's description. Upd Edit (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to quote reliable sources that describe the photo as authentic. Proof of burden is on the ones who's making the claim. BBC, a British propaganda news corporation, is not reliable. The hundred year old negative developed claim stands invalid as the new publications of the same book removed that claim. Now it's shown as a sketch with no source. Midoreigh (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I provided multiple reliable sources including Gupta (2023), Mali (1980), and the BBC article.

Additionally, the 2011 edition of Savitribai Phule Samgra Vangmay, edited by Mali and published by the Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Ani Sanskriti Mandal (a governmental organ), reproduces the same photograph with the same claim on p. 49. The same claims have also been reproduced in Vandana Menon's overview of the controversy for The Print, yesterday. Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion

Now that Dilip Mandal has admitted to cooking up the figure, I think its time to nominate the page for deletion.

https://x.com/Profdilipmandal/status/1877244084684820907

"Confession: I had created a myth or a fabricated character and named her Fatima Sheikh. Please forgive me. The truth is that “Fatima Sheikh” never existed; she is not a historical figure. Not a real person. It is my mistake that, during a particular phase, I created this name out of nothing—essentially from thin air. I did that knowingly. You will not find a single entry in a Google search earlier. No article, no book, no mention. Nothing. Interest in her vanished in 2022 when I abandoned the story of Fatima Sheikh. She came in social media narrative and just vanished Do not ask why I did it. It was a matter of time and circumstance. A figure needed to be constructed for a purpose, and so I crafted one. Thousands of people can attest to this—most of them heard this name from me for the first time. I know the art of creating narratives, of building images. I have mastered this craft, so it was not difficult for me. A fictional sketch was created because there were no old photographs. I spun many stories about her. And thus, Fatima Sheikh came into being." 2405:201:6830:9856:6DD0:77:9D97:1DD6 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding further

https://x.com/Profdilipmandal/status/1877357452020093270 2405:201:6830:9856:6DD0:77:9D97:1DD6 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There's only one mention to a Fatima in a letter by Savitri Phule. That resulted in an entire Wikipedia article which have fabricated date of birth, fabricated date of death, fabricated name probably too!

This article should be nominated for deletion. There's no doubt about it. Midoreigh (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping you, WP:AFD is open for use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)(twitter-based discussion)

Delete

Please do what is necessary to delete this article on a non existent historical figure 117.202.190.48 (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Historians on Mandal's claims

Shraddha Kumbhojkar, Professor and Head of the History Department at Savitribai Phule Pune University, said:

"Based on the available references, it is clear that a person named Fatima did exist. During my interactions with late author Hari Narke and MG Mali, I sought more information but found limited material. The evidence suggests Fatima was part of the Phules' lives and worked with them closely. What remains unclear is her exact role."

Upd Edit (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of historians, the historians at OpIndia has noted that WP refuses to delete this article. I guess I missed the afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Was there actually an AFD? It's only been a day since Dilip Mandal's claims, so the coverage feels a little absurd. What am I missing? Schwinnspeed (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

OpIndia is a far-right rag equivalent in journalist integrity to Breitbart. So, it's completely possible that every point is made up. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Schwinnspeed I guess I should have added to my comment, sorry (there has been no afd I'm aware of). Cdjp1 is basically correct, and OpIndia doesn't like WP. WP:OPINDIA has a little more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:There are no reference"s". There is only one reference of a Fatima in Savitri Phule's letter. A single line which translates to "I know my absence causes Fatima so much trouble, but I am sure she will understand and won’t grumble”.

This is the only primary source mention of a Fatima. There's no mention of Fatima Sheikh in this. There are no other references to Fatima in Phule's letters afaik.

There are no references to Fatima Sheikh in anyone else's writings or speeches at that time either. And there's no writings of Fatima Sheikh!

Hari Narke himself tweeted about the absence of that. He also mentioned many of the stories are fabricated. Hari Narke also mentioned that there's no evidence of Fatimas date of birth.

So, there's no evidence of Fatima Sheikh. No evidence either as Fatima Sheikh's writings or Phule's writings or their contemporaries' writings.

Only one mention of the name Fatima in a letter doesn't result in an entire Wikipedia page with her date of birth, date of death, and many more evidenceless claims. This article should be deleted. Midoreigh (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)(twitter-based discussion)

So? We are not citing that letter here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we know barely anything about Sheikh and had stub-ed the article but it was reverted. However, original research is disallowed and it cannot trump the opinion of historians like Mali and Kumbhojkar. Upd Edit (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Academic research isn't done on Twitter and repeatedly saying there is "no evidence" doesn't make it true. Tomorrow I can post a comment on social media that political activist Dilip Mandal and OpIndia "news" website don't exist and that I manifested them to fool people, does that mean they stop existing? Kodombo (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It requires evidence to create a Wikipedia article.

There's no evidence for the name "Fatima Sheikh". So how is it allowed here?

There's no evidence for the date of birth of this character. So how is it allowed here?

There's no evidence for the date of death of this character. So how it it allowed here? Midoreigh (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:OR. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no policy that precludes creation of articles about those whose DOB and DOD are not known. Tharu (1991), Mali (1980) and other sources use the name "Fatima Sheikh". Upd Edit (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

No evidence for date of birth according to Hari Narke

There's no evidence for the date of birth of this character Fatima Sheikh. Historians like Hari Narke raised this issue when Google published the doodle. So this is just speculations and Google doodle cannot be cited as a source. And according to Hari Narke, many stories of Fatima Sheikh is fabricated too. Date of birth, since there's no evidence for it, should be deleted. Midoreigh (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

See below. Upd Edit (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) (twitter-based discussion)

Version straw poll

Shall we restore this version (and the new Controversy section, added by Kautilya3) until we have more clarity? Upd Edit (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes (with reasons)

• Currently, the first paragraph of the section on biography, the date-of-birth, and the date-of-death remain unsourced; additionally, Tschurenev (2019) does not support the following line. The latest coverage by Vandana Menon of The Print makes it clear that while a Fatima Sheikh existed alongside the Phules, any additional detail is hard to obtain and verify. Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: - What do you think? Upd Edit (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

No (with reasons)

• The suggested version contains even more unsourced claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midoreigh (talk • contribs)

• Like? Upd Edit (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Considering the contentious nature of this article right now, it would be better to discuss the individual changes you want to make and making edit requests for changes is the right way to do it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, this is an edit request but without using the specific template.Upd Edit (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Daniel Quinlan:, I recommend that the protection be lowered to semi. I think enough experienced editors are watching this page now so that we can sort things out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3: I generally prefer semi-protection when it seems sufficient, but I believe the current page protection level is necessary for this article, and I believe it's already helped the community make progress on the article without unnecessary reverts and disruptive edits. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Dilip Mandal redux

Wikipedia has never considered twitter a reliable source. This talk page has gotten very confusing with repeated invocation of twitter posts, especially those of Dilip Mandal, who has essentially disgraced himself for having concocted information in print (sorry for the pun). I would appreciate if somebody can scratch out all the posts above referring to Dilip Mandal tweets. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but that "thing" has moved beyond Twitter [1][2], so discussions on how to cover this are not necessarily bad. My personal view is that an afd would fail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

All that is fine. But the discussion here should proceed based on Wikipedia policies, not twitter rants. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Was removing "19th century" from the lead [3] on purpose? IMO, it fits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, that seems to have been an edit conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It is funny. Everything in Dilip Mandal's retracted article was already published before him. The only thing he concocted was his later retraction.

• Aqsa Khan, Remembering Fatima Sheikh: A Woman Lost In History | #IndianWomenInHistory, Feminism in India, 22 January 2017.
• Sahil Kazmi, Fatima Sheikh – The Forgotten Educationalist of the 19th Century, The Jamia Reivew, March 2019.

And dozens of sources now exist, giving basically the same information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the Jamia Review article was published a few months after Mandal's original 2019 article. But agreed that the larger point still holds: There was published information about her prior to 2019, so for Mandal to say he made it all up is actually a little comedic. Notably The Print's latest coverage on this [4] mentions a 2010 book by Mary Gray where she is mentioned:

“Savitribai graduated from her Training College with flying colours (along with a Muslim woman Fatima Sheikh), with her husband, she opened five schools in and around Pune in 1848…” Schwinnspeed (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

ThePrint itself had a prior article! It apparently withheld it briefly to cross-check veracity, and then re-released.

• Vandana Menon, Fatima Sheikh: The woman who reshaped Indian education with Savitribai Phule, The Print, 9 January 2018.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Is Google Doodle WP:RS?

Some parts of this write-up reference a Google Doodle, but is it WP:RS? Webberbrad007 (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be used with WP:In-text attribution. Google has access to a lot of information we don't have, for instance, all those Google Books pages of books that are not visible to us. Even if they used AI models to extract information, they couldn't have produced a worldwide doodle without human analysis of the information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Made this [5] edit, RS-ness aside, GD is seen by a lot of people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We should have a better source for "She is widely considered to be India’s first Muslim woman teacher." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Controversy

The BBC article makes it clear that there was controversy already in 2020 about the existence of Fatima Sheikh. It is fairly obvious who has generated it. Oral narratives about persons that lived 150 years ago abound in contemporary discourse. There is nothing wrong with them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps "Historicity" would fit better than "Controversy"? Perhaps there's something addable on possible embellishment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Usman Sheikh

The source cited for Usman Sheikh being her brother is the BBC Hindi article from yesterday.

On this claim, the article says that "Someone says that she was the sister of some Usman Sheikh." without identifying who this "Someone" is and where they make such a claim. The article goes on to state "But information about Usman Sheikh is also not easily available." As such, I will remove references to Usman Sheikh temporarily while more definitive claim in a RS is found.

If you feel strongly that reference to Usman is warranted, please revert the change. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

You missed the initial attribution oral narratives state. And, it is fairly common for news reports to omit the names of their sources, unless they are notable individuals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oral narratives abound in the subcontinent and it is difficult to split fact from myth. We have had run-ins before K3, and I can't be bothered with countering this.

Carry on. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the news report was from 2020. It was reprinted yesterday. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

DOB & DOD

An editor has removed the birth and death dates from the article, even though these dates are well-documented in several reliable sources. Is it possible to reintroduce them? Best! Baqi:) (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

What reliable sources are these? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Here is the article from the Indian Express, which clearly mentions the birth and death dates of Fatima Sheikh. Note: This article is paid, but if you remove the paywall, you'll be able to access the full article. Additionally, @25 Cents FC has added the birth and death dates—thanks to him/her for that. Cheers !! Baqi:) (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jannatulbaqi That source checks out. However, this source [6] says "“There is historical evidence to suggest that Fatima Sheikh existed. However, there is no evidence to suggest that she was born on the 9th of January,” says Reeta Ramamurthy Gupta, who wrote a 2023 biography of Savitribai, Savitribai Phule: Her Life, Her Relationships, Her Legacy, published by HarperCollins."

Reasonable people may disagree on how we should deal with this in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Reeta Ramamurthy Gupta's statement appears contradictory, as she acknowledges historical evidence of Fatima Sheikh's existence while simultaneously claiming there is no evidence of her birthdate on January 9th. Gupta does not specify the evidence she refers to regarding the existence and birth/death dates of Fatima Sheikh. Also, we need to refer other authors as well mentioned at the bottom of this ref. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 17:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That does not seem contradictory, WP has many articles on people with unknown birthdates etc. Take for example Muhammad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if my statement caused confusion. The issue is not whether to mention the birthdate, but rather using Gupta's statement as a reference to justify why the date of birth should not be included.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered, using both sources, mentioning the date in-text while also mentioning it's disputed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there more source that say her DoB is uncertain? If there are, then I think it could be done like this, depending on what kind of sources they are. Preferably preceeding recent events. MrMkG (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@MrMkG "Widely regarded as the first female Muslim teacher in India, she has been mentioned multiple times on Twitter, with accounts claiming 9 January to be her birth anniversary. While there is no evidence to support this, what is known is that" from 2018. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jannatulbaqi You're welcome. -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 17:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Currently, her Google profile [7] is withholding the birth date. I think we should also acknowledge the uncertainty. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:REFVAR

@Cdjp1 and others. The ref-tag cite-form was the one used in the article. Please don't change it or mix it up with sfn-form etc, a WP-article should stick to one form of citing and not change it on someone's whim. One advantage with reftag is that you can name refs and easily re-use them in both source-editor and VE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not whim but practicality. The issue is having half a dozen references for a sentence. The style should minimise the the number of superscript tags present. If you want the specific citations to occur outside of them being bundled to resolve that issue, sf/harv allows them to occur in and out of the bundle. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

As the need for the bundle has subsequently been resolved, the sf/harv style can be reverted to reftags. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 You don't need sfn to make a cite-bundle, see for example cites [2] and [3] at Palmer Report. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

As I stated, If you want the specific citations to occur outside of them being bundled to resolve that issue, sf/harv allows them to occur in and out of the bundle, unlike reftags, such as were the case in this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the previous citation style. It should not have been changed without a discussion here as per WP:CITEVAR. This also uncovered an unused source about recent events, which I've commented out for now. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Controversy Section

@25 Cents FC I agree with the absurdity of Mandal's claims but given how much attention and followup this is getting in the press, I think the controversy itself is notable and warrants inclusion as its own section. Yes Mandal is insignificant outside of twitter - but the subsequent followup and media analysis in the last few days aligns with WP:SIGCOV. We should consider keeping the Controversy section in. Perhaps call it something else but the content itself feels notable. Schwinnspeed (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that WP:SIGCOV the threshold to mention it has probably been reached. "Allegations of fabrication" might be a reasonable section name. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

SIGCOV doesn't apply here, WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION is more on point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed and corrected (changed to "the threshold to mention it"), I should have checked the shortcut since it's one I don't use. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I scratched out mention of WP:SIGCOV - my memory of the details of that policy was incorrect, thanks for highlighting. Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is recentism (WP:RECENTISM) and undue weight (WP:UNDUE) w.r.t the topic. The section especially with titles like "controversy" or "allegations of fabrication" for an absurd claim will give it far more legitimacy than appropriate. If there was an article on Dilip Mandal, it could have been relevant there. Citing WP:SIGCOV is a misapplication of policy. It is a bullet point on a policy page related to notablity of articles or whether to have an article not what should go in an article. MrMkG (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I scratched out mention of WP:SIGCOV - my memory of the details of that policy was incorrect, thanks for highlighting. Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think per sources like [8] this deserves a mention, "Historicity" perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding a "historicity" or "controversy" section to document unsubstantiated allegations is giving those allegations too much credit (even if the section doesn't deny the historicity of Fatima Sheikh). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Schwinnspeed thank you for your response. Considering your point that Mandal's claim is receiving attention, please be informed about how much the media in India has become sensationalized. Most TV media and some print media in India, in fact, openly support the ruling party BJP and their leaders or persons associated with them. Additionally, Indian politics is such that no day passes without controversy. Every day, someone makes a controversial remark, and then for a day or two, people outrage, after which the issue settles down.

Moreover, I found a reference that mentions Mandal has been known in the past for his sharp critiques of Hindutva politics but has changed his stance in recent months, after being appointed media advisor in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Personally, when I search for Mandal on Twitter, I find a couple of his past tweets that have sparked major controversies, and all of them received criticism from pro-Hindutva and current ruling party BJP supporters on social media.

In a nutshell, the person seems irrelevant with respect to whether we should take his views seriously or include his content based on his tweets or what he says on social media. Hope this helps! Thank you.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC Thats fair - the sensationalism is widespread and frankly quite exhausting. And this whole thing is so simply absurd so I can understand not wanting to give it any more due weight. But I think there is something to be said that the BBC (hindi) and The Print re-released their previous articles on Fatima Sheikh after Mandal's claims, and that OPINDIA published a piece about the wikipedia article specifically - maybe its not a whole section but a sentence (we don't need to go into length on Mandal) that notes the attempt at revisionist history, which is a prevalent trend as you very well know. Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Real person or imagination

This person did not exist. It was a figment of sickular imagination 2409:40C2:1154:6B8E:68D6:6EFF:FE60:16BB (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So your conclusion is that

"And three years after the Google doodle, a feverish debate over her existence propelled Sheikh and the question of her legacy into the spotlight. Scholars combed through their books, every single cited source on Sheikh’s Wikipedia page was excavated, and screenshots of letters and books were forwarded. The result: A woman named Fatima Sheikh who was friends with Savitribai Phule certainly existed in the mid-nineteenth century."

is just made-up shit? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out whether the real target of this attack was Fatima Sheikh or Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This video got released today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, the problem is "the left." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

2 birds with one stone (OpIndia)? I don't know if Dilip Mandal mentioned Wikipedia when he tweeted. Fwiw, Talk:Fatima_Sheikh#There_are_no_historical_facts... is from 2021. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, he did. But I didn't notice that the "politics of erasure" was four-years old. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Some more coverage: Dilip Mandal Faces Fire for Questioning Educationist Fatima Sheikh’s Existence, from something called clarionindia.net. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Primary Source?

Is there any primary source for Fatima Sheikh?

Do Wikipedia editors understand concept of primary source?

Looking at the this talk page, I am not sure they do. Wikigaurav (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

With respect: You’ve made only one Wikipedia edit in your entire life and started discussions on just two articles, with this being the second one. Do you really believe you know more about primary and secondary sources than senior Wikipedia editors? Editors who dedicate their time to maintaining Wikimedia, constantly monitoring Wikipedia selflessly, without any personal gain? Do you think this is easy? or more info please see WP:PRIMARY. Best! Baqi:) (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... Wikigaurav (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Wikigaurav, I hope you’re doing well. Please remember that Wikipedia community thrives on mutual respect and collaboration. Wikipedia is not a social media space where one can act without consideration for others. We expect all members to maintain a professional and courteous tone in their communications. If any further disrespectful/ harsh comments are made, it will unfortunately lead to a block from the platform. Let’s work together to maintain a positive and supportive environment for everyone. Happy editing.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 19:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I am new to this. Is asking for primary source considered disrespectful by Wikipedia editors? That does explain a lot. Wikigaurav (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, for the purpose of writing WP-articles, finding WP:RSPRIMARY sources or evaluating them is not the focus.

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

The aim of this website is to find the usable secondary WP:RS (scholarly, journalistic), and summarize them with an eye on WP:NPOV. For example, there is disagreement in sources on whether her date of birth is known, and we have to deal with that somehow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Wikigaurav, I apologize if my words sounded confusing. Asking for a primary source is not considered disrespectful, and in fact, experienced editors would be more than happy to assist you with any questions you have. However, questioning their understanding of the platform doesn't sound respectful either. As you said, you are new, so please edit more articles you find interesting, make changes, and make mistakes. Through this, you will learn how things on Wikipedia work. Curiosity is healthy, but my only request is that while replying or asking questions, maintain a positive tone. Have fun!-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Birth and death information

Hopefully, we can have a discussion about this without the disruptive edits. Reviewing the article history, it looks like the birth date was added here on 9 January 2022, the date of the Google Doodle. The death date was added here on 22 September 2022. Both were unsourced edits from new editors. The current article provides an 11 January 2024 indianexpress.com article as the source, but this seems likely to be citogenesis based on the timing and format of the dates.

Some additional data points:

• 5 April 2017 velivada.com article: no birth or death date given
• 7 April 2017 twocircles.net article: no birth or death date given
• 9 January 2018 theprint.in article: Widely regarded as the first female Muslim teacher in India, she has been mentioned multiple times on Twitter, with accounts claiming 9 January to be her birth anniversary. While there is no evidence to support this, what is known is that Fatima Sheikh worked with Savitribai Phule to set up the first school for girls in her own house.

Are there any reliable sources for the birth and death dates and locations? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the above, my way would be to remove dates from lead and infobox while mentioning them somehow in the bio-section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think c. 1831 and c. 1900 would be enough, without any specific dates. The purpose of the dates is to give a rough timeframe and to be able distinguish from other personas with the same name in history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be good enough for lead and infobox, but I still think the article body should comment on the "dispute". Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the date/year of death is based on, if anything?

@Daniel Quinlan, the indianexpress is from a year ago, WP-article looked like this, I don't follow why that makes citogenesis likely. Of course it's possible, but that's often the case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you meant this version, which does have the dates that appear in The Indian Express. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Both versions seem to present the life-dates in an identical manner. If TOI wrote an article in jan 2024 and looked at WP for it, I don't see why they would look at a 2022 version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The gullible Indian press believes anything that is convenient. And TOI is not even worth talking about. The version I pointed was the one that the Indian Express saw in 2023.

The date of death was added in this edit, by an editor that only made this one edit ever! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Avoiding WP:CITOGENESIS is a top priority, so I would support the removal of birth/death dates that are not rigorously sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The dates are thrown into the article as a parenthetical This is one of the few direct references in written records to Fatima (January 9, 1831-October 9, 1900), Savitribai’s long-term colleague and collaborator whose birth anniversary is celebrated on January 9. If the best and oldest reference we have for both dates is an article written after the dates were dubiously added to the Wikipedia article, it definitely seems like citogenesis. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no source to support using circa for either date unless we can find a reliable source with some information that would allow us to extrapolate. The article body should note that her birthday is observed by some on 9 January 1831, which was also the date used by the Google Doodle. That, at least, can be sourced. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The 9 January observance predates Google Doodle. The year appeared only in Google. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the year originates with the Google Doodle, but it is almost certainly the reason why 9 January 1831 has gained prominence in recent years. I found a 9 January 2020 velivada.com article predating the Google Doodle that mentions 1831 in an image that I believe would support "her birthday is observed by some on 9 January 1831", but I don't believe an infographic is sufficient for putting a date into the lead or infobox. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If dates are not supported by good references, we should better drop it from the article. The article can be there without any date. And we can simply state that her birth and death dates are uncertain and 9 January is celebrated as a day of her remembrance. We can clarify that not much is known about her life. Nizil (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems like there is sufficient consensus to remove the remaining dates so I have made edits to that effect. I also added a quote by a Savitribai Phule biographer about this. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Imaginary Character And Fake Information

https://www.instagram.com/p/DEmfedoCP9C/?igsh=MWJvZjVtazF1OGpsMg== 2409:4060:2D34:9C98:C0B5:9F4E:4CF8:2008 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"And three years after the Google doodle, a feverish debate over her existence propelled Sheikh and the question of her legacy into the spotlight. Scholars combed through their books, every single cited source on Sheikh’s Wikipedia page was excavated, and screenshots of letters and books were forwarded. The result: A woman named Fatima Sheikh who was friends with Savitribai Phule certainly existed in the mid-nineteenth century." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)