Talk:Ankit Fadia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Reality of Ankit Fadia[edit]

The truth is that Ankit Fadia is a great ethical hacker who is being defamed by people jealous of him who are spreading rumours against him. Despite all these, he stands today as the greatest ethical hacker of India. I'm really a great fan of this man. All authentic news sources of India such as the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, the Hindu, NDTV etc. recognize his achievements. At the age of 14, he started a website to teach people hacking and a year later, he wrote a book. He has taken part in many investigations of cybercrime and he's a bran ambassador of Digital India. He's promoting Digital literacy in India and also gives his own courses on Digital India. Hate him or love him, he's a great man and you must recognize his achievements.

Delete this article about Ankit Fadia[edit]

The way the current page reads, it seems that Wikipedia should be interviewing every homeless person at the Pacific Garden Mission and giving them a stub here. Ankit Fadia is akin to Paris Hilton famous only for being famous, Ankit Fadia is not a hacker, not a security professional, but he excels with the scam of offering tricks gleaned from Google and re-purposing this as a certificate to impoverished Indians with the expectation of making $80K U.S.D.

Previous edits of this article point to a number of mainstream news publications pointing out that Ankit Fadia has made extraordinary claims, and offered no cites to back these claims up. Ankit Fadia claimed to Wendy McAuliffe at ZDNet UK, Fadia's Hacking Truths website was judged "second best hacking site" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, though no ranked list of "hacking sites" has been published by the FBI.

Attendees of the DEF_CON 20 hacker convention rated Ankit Fadia the charlatan of the year, there is a large posting on Quora about Ankit Fadia under Expertise: What are examples of experts who, in the end are not really experts? which has some 1400 votes. that Ankit Fadia is not an expert in anything except giving poor security advice to clueless writers in his home country. Please also research this link when considering this deletion request.

While I may have borked the submission to delete this article, I hope someone else carries the torch and corrects my mistake, I thank you for your time.

Mongo Feels Better (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This article cannot be deleted for the same reason as the Wikipedia article on Paris Hilton cannot be deleted. From most reputable sources, it appears that hes' a fraud, but this fact must be stated in the article. I'll see what I can do about it, your help would be appreciated. Thanks!

PratikMallya 22:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You want help? Here ya go: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkblack (talkcontribs) 15:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Fadia is now known more for his being a fraudster and plagiarist than for any consulting he may or may not have done. The page should be kept up just because he's a 'notable' scam artist. The Forbes article explains a lot of how he has used mis-information, plagiarism and the technical illiteracy of the Indian media to build a name: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Are we going to be making a Wikipedia page for every fraudster consultant under the sun? This page should be submitted for deletion. Wikipedia is NOT your personal advertising media and is neither made to raise oneself ego or credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Most sources are self-published. The article isn't NPOV. However, the article cannot be deleted since it is notable. Harsh (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the need for a "Claims" section?[edit]

If these are merely claims made by the individual, Ankit Fadia and unsubstantiated by any other concerned party, why is there a need for a list of such claims? It serves no purpose and it appears that Wikipedia is in some way endorsing these baseless claims. Shouldn't this section be deleted altogether? After all, wikipedia is supposed to contain verified facts and not baseless claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

These claims are what helped in get media coverage and therefore, notability. utcursch | talk 11:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, and that should be mentioned in a way that makes it clear that these claims do not have a factual basis. The way these claims are presented seems to lend credence to them. Either this be mentioned, or the claims should be deleted altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Ankit Fadia has also sponsored the "Ankit Fadia Information Security Award", which is given annually by The Singapore Management University, to an outstanding student in the Information Security and Trust Course under the Bachelor of Science (Information System Management) degree". This is false and the reference given "" contains no such statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Contact 09380895050 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How old was he really when he published his first book?[edit]

Some sources say he was 14, while some say he was 15. Both these figures seem to be in error since he was born in 1985, and the book was published in 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He would have turned 16 during 2001 but if the book was published before his birthday he would still have been 15 at the time. January (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Heads up, fellow editors[edit]

Bunch of things need to change here.

  1. There is no way we're going to have a WP:BLP article where the first section is called "Claims" and the last section is called "The Unethical Side"
  2. We don't need to capture every single reference; we only need the best references to the most notable information
  3. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; Fadia's future goals are not a topic for an encyclopedia.
  4. We cannot cite blogs, websites, and WP:SPS for contested information in a BLP.

I'd love to see articles like this deleted; Fadia's true notability in the security field, or, for that matter, the Internet field, is at present nil. But that's a losing argument and a waste of time in the fact of a zillion little trade press and magazine cites. So instead, let's just pare this article down to the bare facts, and stop aggrandizing the subject with a back-and-forth controversy played on a Wikipedia article.

Edits to come, comments welcome.

--- tqbf 19:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani crackers acted like tantrum throwing kids[edit]

The Pakistani crackers mentioned defaced random sites with posts implying their annoyance with Ankit Fadia. Of course the posts were full of bluster on the face of it and in actuality couldn't, with proof, reverse or dismiss any of Ankit Fadia's achievements. Their behavior was ample exhibition of the profile of a chest beating, ape-like hooligan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ankit Fadia's "achievements"? You mean his claims? When did they become achievements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[edit]

How freakishly-odd personnel domain for the so-called "India's ultimate kickass hacker" !!!

"Fadia has also sponsored Singapore Management University's "Ankit Fadia Information Security Award", which is given annually to "an outstanding student"...." - real funny

nd o'yea I claim to have saved the world from a flock of mutated pigeons (I was actually helping CBI)

thaht id —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

New URL for footnote 21: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jericho347 (talkcontribs) 22:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


The "About" page on his website claims that he's currently pursuing a Bachelors degree in Computer Science from Stanford (but that's not a credible source); so does this 2003 issue of Stanford Magazine (I'm unsure about the credibility of this magazine). Was he ever actually enrolled at Stanford, later dropped out or is still in the same program after 7 years? Another bluff? ಠ_ಠ -- (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I did contact the National Student Clearinghouse and confirmed that Ankit Fadia dropped out of Stanford University in his Junior year, but this hasn't stopped him from saying he's a student in press reports. Mongo Feels Better (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ankit Fadia Study Award[edit]

Updated the source for this section and also the award amount. It is not $50,000, but is $1,000. --Siddheshp (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How to Unblock Everything[edit]

[1] was recently added (improperly) to the article. It was removed (with cause) however the source appears to be reliable with respect to other information about this BLP subject, notably the aforementioned book. Any issues?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
16:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Additons in the article[edit]

Anything negative seems to be tightly controlled on this Wiki article.


Ankita Fadia is a very controversial figure with most of this claims being ripped apart in media and in blogs. For example here is one collection at Errata: Charlatan - Ankit Fadia and a very revealing article by Charles Assisi in Forbes India magazine titled Ankit Fadia Revealed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarendra (talkcontribs) 14:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Blogs and other self-published sources cannot be used as sources here per WP:BLPSPS, neither can which is described in its Wikipedia article as a "privately owned and operated hobby-site" (or, which carries the same article). January (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
What about a physically published magazine by an established journalist publisher? The physical copy of the Forbes magazine also carries this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The response above related to, not Forbes. January (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC) is privately owned like many newspapers and journalistic sources but that does not take away its credibility as a more than decade old archive of false claims in the infosec industryAbhi2point0 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if can't be used as a reference, it can certainly be mentioned as a place to view a factual list of plagiarism accusations which are not subjective since the original sources are cited or linked to.Abhi2point0 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it can't be used at all. See WP:SPS - "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." January (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

2012 hacking[edit]

There are now two separate references to the site being hacked in 2012, one in the career section and one in a section of its own. Are these describing the same incidents? Also does the Youtube video confirm his site was hacked in response to a challenge Fadia issued or is it a video of Fadia issuing a challenge? (I can't view it, apparently its not available in my country.) January (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to have a separate section called "Personal Website Compromised" (WP:UNDUE/WP:CSECTION). As much as I agree with whatever says about Fadia, there's hardly any WP:RS-compliant criticism of Fadia, compared to the positive coverage he has received. utcursch | talk 12:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Does the Youtube video confirm a connection between the incident and the challenge on Tech Toyz (I can't judge this because I can't view the Youtube video)? Neither of the other two sources do, so if the video doesn't this is WP:SYNTH. January (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Try utcursch | talk 20:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't view that one either, same problem. January (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

CHIP Magazine[edit]

This section has been moved back into early life, I don't think it belongs there since the point of this section is the disputed claim not the event itself. Chronogically it should go at the point the claim was made, which seems to be 2009 from the source. January (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. How about having a "Hacking claims" section? It's hard to present these in a chronological order, because their authenticity is doubtful, and there's no evidence for them except Fadia's own word. utcursch | talk 20:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is presenting them in chronological order a problem? If the sources are strong enough to be used for them they should state when the claims were made.
Also the sentence "Fadia has been controversial due to his questionable claims and allegations of plagiarism" is not NPOV. The neutral way would be to state that the claims have been questioned by ... , just describing the claims as questionable is casting an opinion that we agree with this (which I know many editors of this article do, but it still has to be NPOV). The plagiarism part is WP:WEASELy as it does not state who has made these accusations or what form they take. The source cited also looks to be a gossip column, the strapline "The page that knows how to laugh" doesn't suggest it is a suitable source for controversies in a BLP. January (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with the removal. The problem with presenting things in chronological order is that they were claimed in various parts at different times, and contested at another time. For example, Fadia has been claiming that he hacked the site of an Indian magazine since 2002. However, the interview in which he explicitly mentions the magazine's name as CHIP is from 2007. The claim was contested by the magazine's editor in 2012. utcursch | talk 17:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the plagiarism charge is the most serious and objectively the easiest to verify since (it may be self published but is a well respected trade bulletin) has the exact list of original sources and Fadia's uncited use in his books, I am surprised that editors are trying so hard to remove that point from this article. The Sunday Guardian article that speaks to the un-named source is from the "investigation" section of the site, so definitely does not qualify as weasely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi2point0 (talkcontribs) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the wording here in this article, not the Sunday Guardian. Regarding, as I explained above it is policy not to use self-published sources in BLPs. January (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Fadia started a degree at Stanford but dropped out according to an editor who contacted them (see Education discussion above), although there is no secondary source for this. Is it misleading to only state that he started a degree, since the article can't state that he didn't graduate without resorting to WP:OR (the user I just reverted seems to think so)? January (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

January Dude are you ankit fadia? or are you paid by him? why are you interested in promoting someone fake who is selling useless certificates to innocent people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jarjarjarraj (talkcontribs) 17:03, 22 April 2013(UTC)

You are requested to comment on the content, and not the creator. Please try to avoid personal attacks while displaying your views. If you have any changes to be suggested to the article, feel free to do so. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


THAT IS WHAT IS THIS FADIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1plus7is8 (talkcontribs) 11:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement ?[edit]

Most of the part from this article seems to be written like an advertisement. I think very soon we need to mark this article as an "Advertisement".

Lead section[edit]

The lead states "He has been accused of plagiarism and false claims by leading publications such as Forbes and Sunday Guardian." The Sunday Guardian is actually reporting allegations made by Twitter/Facebook users, the Forbes article is an opinion piece and reflects the author's view, not Forbes' as a whole. This either needs to be reworded or removed. January (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ankit Fadia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)