Talk:Salah Choudhury

This article is biased

This does not include the official reason why Bangladesh government is charging him for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.142.75 (talk • contribs)

• Mr Choudhury was convicted "on charge of smuggling information out of the country and was awarded a three-month term in the case" and "in February 2015, Mr Choudhury was convicted for four years on charge of revolt against Bangladesh government(sedition)".

• It mentions the charges of sedition, treason, blasphemy and espionage. Stop adding uncited material. Andjam 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are always 2 sides to any story. This article only discuss the view in favor of Salah Choudhury. Why is the other angle written only in 1 sentence? xsp85 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bangladesh passport forbids traveling to Israel. He was arrested for violating passport laws. Same thing would have happened if some one before 1990s went to South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.236.229 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Lets be fair here

The neutrality and the Talk page of this Wiki page is really strange. Most important information are skipped or wiped but the person is over promoted. Why his convictions are not written on this Wiki page! Mr Choudhury was convicted "on charge of smuggling information out of the country and was awarded a three-month term in the case" and "in February 2015, Mr Choudhury was convicted for four years on charge of revolt against Bangladesh government(sedition)". 117.198.68.193(talk) 04:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

According to CIA's The World Factbook, Bangladesh has population on 147,365,352. The percentage of Bangladeshi who are Jewish? 0% Question, why would a Bangladeshi weekly magazine be made up of almost all Jewish "special contributors," when the percentage of Jews living in Bangladesh is 0. (I'm not trying to be racist here, just raising the question. I hope you understand. I have many Jewish friend. I'm not Anti-Semite.) xsp85 08:3, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand why people are arguing whether this piece is bias or not, the point is, a man is facing death for attempting to go to Israel! Was he a terrorist? No. Was he carrying weapons or illegal drugs with him? No. But I suppose that's a fair sentence for someone who, heaven forbid, tries flying to the enemy country.

Completely trumped up charges!

I don't think the 'Weekly Blitz' has mostly jewish contributors or anything close. Check out their masthead: http://www.weeklyblitz.net/?cat=6

'AHSAN' 'Haque' "NURUZZAMAN" "Majumder" -- doesn;t read like a chapter of B'nai Brith. But by all means, lets hear "the other side" -- we certainly don't want to discriminate against the anti-semites. Heck, some of my best friends are Jew haters!

• Read the article of Espionage in wikipedia, and see how many people were executed and life imprisonment in USA or Russia for that. Bangladesh is a democratic nation, has independent judiciary. If Mr Choudhury is innocent, he and the western media should be confident about his release fair and square.

"Bangladesh is a democratic nation" with an "independent judiciary"? If Mr. Choudhury is found innocent (don't hold your breath), then he can only hope they won't kill him quietly, after all. Please, don't insult out intelligence. Besides, your comparison to Russia is ludicrous and exhibits your utter lack of knowledge of Russian history (take it from a Russian dissident - me). And by the way, just about the only people who have been executed for espionage during peace time in the U.S. were the Rosenberg coouple - and he as sure as hell was guilty of high treason and spying for the enemy (USSR). Do you really believe what you yourself are saying - that Choudhury is a spy? If so, you need to read the article on "insanity" in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.123.114 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Killing him quietly doesn't contest the fact that Bangladesh has an independent judiciary. There are plenty of terrorists in Bangladesh who'd be more than happy to kill a Jewish spy. That doesn't mean Bangladesh doesn't have an independent judiciary. What you're saying are intuitions, and not verifiable truths. Ratibgreat (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Weekly Blitz এর প্রতিষ্ঠাতা দেশদ্রোহী সালাহ উদ্দিন শোয়েব চৌধুরী এর আগেও বাংলাদেশের বিপক্ষে ইসরাইল এর প্রতিনিধি হয়ে কাজ করার অপরাধে জেল রিমান্ড হয়ে থাকে এবং ১৯৯৯ সালে ই-মেইলর মাধ্যমে শেখ হাসিনা এবং তার পরিবারকে জীবন হুমকি দেওয়ার অপরাধে ৬ মাস জেল হয় এবং ২১শে গ্রেনেট হামলায়ে এই সালাহ উদ্দিন শোয়েব চৌধুরী জরিত ছিল।

বর্তমানে দেশদ্রোহী সালাহ উদ্দিন শোয়েব চৌধুরী আওয়ামীলীগের সাপোর্টারের বেশ ধরে শেষ রক্ষা পাওয়ার চেষ্টা করছে ।

এই দেশদ্রোহী এর সকল অপকর্মের তথ্য লিঙ্কে দেয়া আছে

https://drive.google.com/.../1_jKfDQeLhelbFydMaAZuAbm5NC9... Sajalony (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Sdsouza 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Link

1. The New York Times, Risk of Journalism in Bangladesh <ref: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E6DF123CF937A25751C1A9659C8B63>

2. Incubating ultra radicalism <ref: http://www.mideastweb.org/salah01.htm>

3. The Wall Street Journal, The Americas <ref: http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110009088>

4. The Australian, No tolerance for love and mercy in Bangladesh <ref: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20758306-32522,00.html>

5. Canada Free Press, The Moslem Hero of Moderation <ref: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2499>

6. American Chronicle, Anti Semitic People in Associated Press <ref: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/60675>

7. Pakistan Daily, Media under attack in Bangladesh <ref: http://www.daily.pk/world/asia/82-asia/3358-media-under-attack-in-bangladesh.html>

8. The New Nation, Congressional briefing on Bangladesh <ref: http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/05/23/news0493.htm>

9. Voice of America, Freedom of speech in South Asia <ref: http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2007-08/2007-08-14-voa2.cfm?CFID=1329325&CFTOKEN=23583971>

10. Berliner Zeitung, Der Andere Moslem <ref: http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/spezial/dossiers/wie_soll_ich_leben/75561/index.php>

11. The Wall Street Journal, Bangladesh on trial <ref: http://www.interfaithstrength.com/images/WSJ.html> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoopnews (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive rewrite needed

This article as it is presently written reads like an uncritical hagiography, laughably presents egregiously false information ("the most influential anti-Jihadist newspaper in Bangladesh","enjoys high credibility in the West,"has already turned into the largest and most influential periodical in Bangladesh" etc) as facts, and omits information which shows the subject in much poorer light. It also provides no citations for the claims that he was charged with Blasphemy and treason. The whole thing has to be rewritten before it is in compliance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Tec15 (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- the article needs references from reliable sources. Right now, it lacks sources for many parts. I have marked them with CN tags. --Ragib (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ragib|Ragib], I am not expert in commenting on wekipedia. Please show us the reason , why the man's bioghrapy shuold be wekified. And the newspaper weekly bltz is not famous and why it will be most infulential. Please come to dhaka and find me a hard copy of the weekly blitz . I think its sef promotiuon by Mr. Chowdury with the help of his friends . I think the articel should remove from wekipedia as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.173.101 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Blitz এর প্রতিষ্ঠাতা দেশদ্রোহী সালাহ উদ্দিন শোয়েব চৌধুরী এর আগেও বাংলাদেশের বিপক্ষে ইসরাইল এর প্রতিনিধি হয়ে কাজ করার অপরাধে জেল রিমান্ড হয়ে থাকে এবং ১৯৯৯ সালে ই-মেইলর মাধ্যমে শেখ হাসিনা এবং তার পরিবারকে জীবন হুমকি দেওয়ার অপরাধে ৬ মাস জেল হয় এবং ২১শে গ্রেনেট হামলায়ে এই সালাহ উদ্দিন শোয়েব চৌধুরী জরিত ছিল।

বর্তমানে দেশদ্রোহী সালাহ উদ্দিন শোয়েব চৌধুরী আওয়ামীলীগের সাপোর্টারের বেশ ধরে শেষ রক্ষা পাওয়ার চেষ্টা করছে ।

এই দেশদ্রোহী এর সকল অপকর্মের তথ্য লিঙ্কে দেয়া আছে

https://drive.google.com/.../1_jKfDQeLhelbFydMaAZuAbm5NC9... Sajalony (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Shahjalal vs Zia - Questionable authenticity

The name of the Airport in which Salah was arrested is stated, "Shahjalal Int'l Airport". The newspaper quoted also is quoted to say "Shahjalal Int'l Airport). Interesting to note here is that the airport was renamed such only in 2010 and the name Zia Int'l Airport existed in 2003, during the time of the arrest. The author of the article also fiddled with the actual quote to mention "Shahjalal" instead of the original article from the newspaper The Daily Star where it says "Zia" (just follow the citation given).

It seems like the author of the article has fiddled with evidence on purpose, and hence the authenticity of the article is questionable.

Ratibgreat (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

I have added controversy section regarding Salah Choudhury but I'm not sure if the source I used is best source for it. But the NYPD is charging Salah Udin Choudhury for Grand Larceny via fraud since he's cheated on one of my friend and another female supporter. Complaints have also been made on March 25, 2011 to the Manhattan District Attorney. I'll add this with more source to come when the story appears on the media. Please forgive me if this is not reliable source and feel free to discuss with me about Salah Udin Choudhury --74.108.85.251 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are not allowed in biographies of living persons. Marokwitz (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources commented out of article

(Commenting this out because we generally don't keep big lists of external articles like this, but if someone wants to use them to improve the article, or incorporate them as citations, that would be great.)

• An Interview with Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury: Will America Act to Save One Courageous Man's Life?, The New York Sun, 10 November 2006
• Pro-Israeli editor beaten in Bangladesh by Michael Freund, The Jerusalem Post, 17 October 2006
• Interfaith Strength, website run by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury and Dr. Richard L. Benkin
• Rendezvous With Israeli Peace Writer: Prof. Ada Aharoni by S. Choudhury, Weekly Blitz, reprinted by the International Forum for the Literature and Culture of Peace
• Benkin, R. L. (31 October 2006). "President Iajuddin Ahmed: Restore Faith in Bangladesh Justice, Drop Choudhury Case". Weekly Blitz.
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

-->

Disruptive edits

Thank you, NeverTry4Me, for making an effort at cleanup. Many of your edits have been helpful, but others veer towards "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" territory.

• [13] removed two paragraphs with the vague explanation "- citation". The sourced content was merged here in this edit by an uninvolved editor as the result of consensus at this deletion discussion. It should not be removed unless consensus has changed.
• [14] removed content with the explanation "there is no American Jewish Committee and Wikipedia highlighted the link as 'not reliable'." On the contrary, there certainly is an American Jewish Committee (AJC). Do not act on highlights applied by script User:Headbomb/unreliable unless you understand what it is showing you. Context matters. A press release by AJC is not independent of AJC and naturally tends to be biased in favor of AJC. That doesn't mean it is unreliable for all things. Like other self-published sources, it can be a reliable source for information about their own publicly stated position. The text of the press release plainly supports the statement that the AJC "showed support for Choudhury and his ideals". You've removed this before and been reverted. Knock it off.
• [15] removed content with the explanation "citation to homepage that doesn't mention even, is not a citation at all". The citation was broken, but it took me less than two minutes to fix it. You've done something similar several times with other references here, and been reverted. If you can't repair a citation, tag it and leave it for an editor with greater resources or expertise.
• [16] is unfathomable. Your comment about the UNHCR has nothing to do with The Times of Israel. Perhaps you are just confused, but the edit is disruptive.

Before turning to cleanup, you twice tried to get this article deleted. No one agreed with you. From the above examples, it appears that your feelings about the subject may be strong, and you may be having difficulty being objective. I encourage you to take a break from this topic. You don't need to take sole responsibility for this article, and there are plenty of other articles in need of improvement that you could work on. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

salah uddin shoaib choudhury and Aug 21 Grenade Attack

Terrorist Aug 21 Grenade Attack, Sajalony (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Grave BLP violations

Several sources in the biography lead are not reliable or partisan. london-globe.com is not a reliable source, especially not for such a sensitive subject like this. The Daily Star is a rival newspaper of the Weekly Blitz and commentary from this paper should be presented as opinion and not as hard fact. In its current state, this article is a grave violation of WP:Biographies of living persons. Until now, there has been no recent activity on this talk page, yet some users here are extremely keen to revert without bothering to use the talk page. This is disruptive behavior. Furthermore, as long as the dispute remains unresolved, the neutrality template should not be removed. Mohivela (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no WP:BLP violation here. This individual was convicted on those charges as mentioned. You need to also check the lead of articles such as Jason Servis, Graham Ivan Clark, Asaram and others. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed significant amounts of unsourced and poorly sourced material, which is a BLP violation. Ratnahastin, before restoring that material, please provide additional sources to address the BLP concerns. If disputed content is removed, the burden is on you to find consensus for inclusion as required by the policy WP:ONUS. Please also note that the content you restored included copyright violations, which should not be restored under any circumstance. – notwally (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with notwally's characterization of the material that was restored by @Ratnahastin. I also agree with Mohivela that it contains WP:NOPV violations. Because there's been no discussion on the point, it's unclear just how much of a WP:PUBLICFIGURE this subject actually is, despite him literally and figuratively making the news. That would be a good place to start, to determine what kind of WP:WEIGHT is due for the conviction, as in where and how it should be presented in the article. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Just wikilawyering will do nothing. You have to point out where is is the BLP violation and where we can find the violation of NPOV. Nobody doubts that this person is only known for spreading disinformation with his tabloid and for the criminal charges over which he was convicted. Orientls (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There could certainly be useful information on issues with the article subject spreading disinformation into the article. However, that information needs to be presented neutrally. That is why adding large amounts of material needs consensus to include if it is disputed as required by the policy WP:ONUS. Three editors have expressed concern with that content on this talk page, and you should not be restoring it without obtaining the consensus to include that is literally required by Wikipedia policy. – notwally (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not depend on votecount. Mohivela is a blatant SPA and it is problematic how you are still sticking to wikilawyering instead of describing your edits. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, consensus is based on discussion and responding to concerns. When have you done either in this discussion? Also, the "responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Your comments are verging on WP:NPA at this point. – notwally (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That is absurd. I responded to this discussion before you started wiping out all the necessary content from the article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

To add, claiming that someone "has posted disinformation on various occasions" or "is noted for spreading disinformation" while citing an opinion article [17] and an unsigned editorial [18] (on a website that looks more like a blog than a newsite as well) is definitely a BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of WP:RSs to support that sentence. WicNews[19] which describes Salah Choudury that way. A number of factcheckers like PTI News,[20] Boomlive,[21] AltNews [22] and others have also found Salah Choundary has posted disinformation. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The WicNews article definitely does not look reliable, and the other three sources are about the same single, specific issue, rather than the generalized statement you had been restoring. Only the AltNews source provides any generalized statement that would support your claims ("who is often found spreading misinformation"), but that would be only a single supporting source, when that type of contentious information about a living person would need to be directly supported by multiple reliable sources. I will also note that only Boom is verified by the International Fact-Checking Network (see [23]). – notwally (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

We are not saying he is a "conspiracy theorist" or a "fake news peddler" but only summarising the incidents where he posted disinformation and they are indeed "various occasions". WicNews is a mainstream Caribbean news outlet and is used elsewhere on Wikipedia articles.[24] It is a reliable source. AltNews was certified by IFCN and it is just AltNews is no longer renewing its accreditation. It is universally recognised as one of the leading fact-checkers and is also listed at List of fact-checking websites. We also have Bangladeshi mainstream outlet Daily Star fact-checking him, There is no issue in saying "has posted disinformation on various occasions". - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

He has been convicted for these charges, per WP:SUSPECT, we cannot mention charges for non public figures but convictions are allowed, but I don't think that this journalist is non public figure either, as he has received international coverage for his pro Israel journalistic work.

• "Journalist gets seven-year jail sentence for decade-old articles". RSF. 2024-11-27. Retrieved 2024-12-11.

  "Choudhury was awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment under "Choudhury was finally convicted of writing “distorting and damaging” articles."

• Winer, Stuart; Fabian, Emanuel; Fabian, Emanuel (2014-01-09). "Bangladesh editor gets 7 years for attempted Israel trip". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2024-12-11.

  "[Choudhuri] was convicted of damaging national interests with his writing and for his planned trip to Israel"

• "Mysterious Salah Uddin Shoaib gets 7-year jail". Dhaka Tribune. 2014-01-09. Retrieved 2024-12-11.

  "In the order, the court said: “Although he was facing sedition charges, Shoaib was awarded seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under section 505(A) of the penal code for having inflammatory materials.”

• "Blitz editor Shoaib jailed for swindling money". The Daily Star. 2015-02-20. Retrieved 2024-12-11.

  "A Dhaka court yesterday sentenced Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the English weekly Blitz, to four years' rigorous imprisonment in a case filed for misappropriating Tk 69 lakh.... It also fined the convict Tk 10,000, in default, to suffer six more months in jail."

To remove them all together from the article would be unconstructive. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

His arrest and conviction are in the article. When were they ever removed altogether? – notwally (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This does not address my main argument and you removed it from the lead.. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping not to participate in an edit war. Instead of digging a trench, I've modified the lede. It does reflect the underpinnings of this subject's notability. It does not rely on undue discussion or copyright violations. How's it look to you? Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for moving things forward, but unfortunately I disagree with some of your recent changes. "He has also been an active supporter of Israel, a controversial political opinion in majority-Muslim Bangladesh", cannot be added on lead because he is not exactly notable for that. In fact, the article's earlier version noted that he has been condemned by a number of Jews[25] but not sure why it has been removed now. Your edit also ignores the fact that he was sentenced for embezzlement. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please make your corrections to the lede. Without massive BLP restorations to the body. I'm only going off what currently appears there. As the lede should only summarize the contents that appear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Quote "He has also been an active supporter of Israel, a controversial political opinion in majority-Muslim Bangladesh", cannot be added on lead because he is not exactly notable for that. Quite the opposite, this was exactly the controversy that got him most international attention. Even the Wall Street Journal, and thus the largest U.S. newspaper by print circulation reported about this controversy and if Choudhury ever got attention in Western media, it was precisely because of that. At the very least, it can be said, that this is no less notable than the convictions which you are trying to squeeze into the lead at any means.Mohivela (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Claims such as "condemned by a number of Jews" need to be directly supported by the cited sources, preferably by multiple sources, which was not the case. Hence my edit summary for the change that read, "remove content not in cited source" [26]. Without proper sourcing, that was another BLP violation that should be immediately removed (WP:BLPREMOVE), and I am not sure why Ratnahastin was restoring that content without checking the source. – notwally (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The Times of Israel article does say "He’s also a fraud, according to some Jews in the United States and Israel who once supported him." It also says"Brenda West, writing in the online New English Review, noted that “many newspapers and institutions sang his praises with weekly articles. The Wall Street Journal carried admiring articles about him, as did many other newspapers, and bloggers flooded the Internet with their awe-stricken appreciation of what looked like Choudhury’s dedication to Western humanistic principles.” Yet soon after his release on bail, allegations began surfacing that Choudhury was a ruthless con artist with a criminal past — and a pseudo-journalist guilty of plagiarism who had strong Islamist connections before he inexplicably became an anti-Islamist. Some have even suggested that Choudhury he may be an agent posing as a friend of the Jews in order to raise money for Islamic fundamentalist organizations." As such, the removal of "but has been condemned by a number of Jews" was inappropriate and the current sentence on lead is totally misleading. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

"He's also a fraud, according to some Jews in the United States and Israel who once supported him" and "has been condemned by a number of Jews" are not the same thing. – notwally (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

How? Calling somebody a fraud is condemnation. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

And how is a woman described by the Times of Israel merely as a self-described “Jewish woman and patriotic American who became very involved in counter-jihad work after 9/11” a notable critic that would deserve special mention? The preceding paragraph already spells out the fraud allegations in detail. There was no need to add to that. Besides, one might have quoted as well Richard Belkin who was cited in support of Choudhury by the Times of Israel. Mohivela (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If we start considering it noteworthy anytime "some" people criticize someone, then that would not be helpful to building a useful encyclopedia in my opinion. Also, I do not believe calling someone a fraud is the same as condemning them generally, and I also think that "a number of" implies many people, rather than "some". In any case, that kind of contentious statement about a living person should be sourced to multiple reliable sources. – notwally (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am sure no source exists to support the opposite. Times of Israel is a reliable source for this purpose. If you still have problem with that then we also don't need the self-procalamation from Choudhury that he is a "zionist and a friend of Israel" per WP:SOAP if we cannot mention the dispute over that claim. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The sentence about his support for Israel can be removed from both the lead and section. The former sentence "and has posted disinformation on various occasions" can be rephrased to "Fact-checkers have found Choudhury to have posted disinformation on various occasions", and the findings from Alt News and Boom live should be summarised on article body. Lorstaking (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Where are the sources saying that he has posted disinformation on various occasions? I do not see any support for that in the Boom article posted earlier in this thread. Please note that consensus is based on discussion and reasons, not merely stating what you think should be done. – notwally (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  With respect to the Boom article, it says "An old photo of Rahul Gandhi traveling with his childhood friend and Congress leader Amitabh Dubey and the latter's wife, journalist Amulya Gopalakrishnan, is being falsely shared with the claim that Gandhi was seen with former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's daughter, Amrit Singh ... The photo was posted by X user Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who alleged that Gandhi was photographed with Amrit Singh ..."[27] --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that is only a single occassion that is being discussed in that article, and it is covered in the "controversies" section of this article in the second sentence, along with one other claim. Are there other instances that could be added to the article? – notwally (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is not covered on the article as of yet. We also have fact check from AltNews that say he spread disinformation.[28] Once these instances are described in the "Other controversies" section then we can write "Fact-checkers have found Choudhury to have posted disinformation on various occasions", on lead. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)