Talk:Asian News International#Factchecking Wikipedia
{{Talk page header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ipa}}
{{Indian English}}
{{notforum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes |1=
{{WikiProject Business |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject India |importance=High |auto=yes |image-needed=yes |assess-date=April 2012 |delhi=yes |delhi-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Wikipedia|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Press
|title = ANI Files Rs 2 Crore Defamation Suit Against Wikipedia Before Delhi High Court, Summons Issued
|url = https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-wikipedia-defamation-262700
|date = 2024-07-09
|org = LiveLaw
|author = Nupur Thapliyal
|title2 = ANI files defamation claim against Wikipedia, demands Rs 2 crore in damages
|url2 = https://scroll.in/latest/1070395/delhi-high-court-summons-wikipedia-in-defamation-suit-by-ani
|date2 = 2024-07-09
|org2 = Scroll.in
|author3 = Khadija Khan
|title3 = Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia?
|date3 = 2024-07-11
|org3 = The Indian Express
|url3 = https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-has-ani-slapped-a-defamation-case-against-wikipedia-9443391/
|lang3 =
|quote3 =
|archiveurl3 =
|archivedate3 =
|accessdate3 = 2024-07-11
|author4 = Aroon Deep
|title4 = Wikipedia parent responds to ANI defamation suit, says content by volunteer editors
|date4 = 2024-07-12
|org4 = The Hindu
|url4 = https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/wikipedia-parent-responds-ani-defamation-suit-says-content-by-volunteer-editors/article68395472.ece
|lang4 =
|quote4 =
|archiveurl4 =
|archivedate4 =
|accessdate4 = 2024-07-12
|title5 ='If You Don't Like India, Don't Work Here': Delhi High Court To Wikipedia On ANI's Contempt Plea Over Defamation Dispute
|author5 = Nupur Thapliyal
|url5 = https://www.livelaw.in/amp/high-court/delhi-high-court/if-you-dont-like-india-dont-work-here-delhi-high-court-to-wikipedia-on-anis-contempt-plea-over-defamation-dispute-268668
|date5 = 2024-09-06
|org5 = LiveLaw
|lang5 =
|quote5 =
|archiveurl5 =
|archivedate5 =
|accessdate5= 2024-09-06
|author6 = Deep, Aroon
|title6 = On ANI’s defamation suit against Wikipedia {{pipe}} Explained
|date6 = 2024-09-10
|org6 = The Hindu
|url6 = https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ani-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia/article68627535.ece
|lang6 = en
|urlstatus6 = live
|archiveurl6 = https://web.archive.org/web/20240910174948/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ani-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia/article68627535.ece
|archivedate6 = 2024-09-10
|accessdate6 = 2024-09-11
|author7 = Nishant Shah
|title7 = Why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information
|date7 = 2024-09-17
|org7 = The Indian Express
|url7 = https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-case-wikipedia-india-challenge-freedom-speech-information-9572234/
|lang7 = en
|urlstatus7 =
|accessdate7 = 2024-09-18
|author8 = Tanishka Sodhi
|title8 = Explained: What’s ANI vs Wikipedia legal battle all about?
|date8 = 2024-09-18
|org8 = Newslaundry
|url8 = https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/09/18/explained-whats-ani-vs-wikipedia-legal-battle-all-about
|lang8 = en
|urlstatus8 =
|accessdate8 = 2024-09-18
|author9 = Pete Hunt
|title9 = Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia?
|date9 = September 22, 2024
|org9 = The Diplomat
|url9 = https://thediplomat.com/2024/09/will-indian-courts-tame-wikipedia/
|lang9 =
|quote9 =
|archiveurl9 =
|archivedate9 =
|accessdate9 = September 22, 2024
|author10 = Simone Lobo
|title10 = Video: Wikipedia vs ANI—All About the Delhi HC Case and How it Can Affect Information Flow in India
|date10 = October 10, 2024
|org10 = MediaNama
|url10 = https://www.medianama.com/2024/10/223-video-delhi-hc-action-wikipedia-ani-defamation-lawsuit-affect-india/
|lang10 =
|quote10 =
|archiveurl10 =
|archivedate10 =
|accessdate10 = October 10, 2024
|author11 = Bhavini Srivastava
|title11 = Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI's page
|date11 = October 14, 2024
|org11 = Bar and Bench
|url11 = https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-slams-wikipedia-refusal-divulge-identity-those-edited-ani-page
|lang11 =
|quote11 =
|archiveurl11 =
|archivedate11 =
|accessdate11 = October 14, 2024
|author12 = Nupur Thapliyal
|title12 = Delhi High Court Takes Exception To Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI, Says Majesty Of Court Is Over And Above Anyone
|date12 = October 14, 2024
|org12 = LiveLaw
|url12 = https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-wikipedia-ani-defamation-cant-threaten-judge-272349
|lang12 =
|quote12 =
|archiveurl12 =
|archivedate12 =
|accessdate12 = October 14, 2024
|author13 =
|title13 = ‘Extremely disturbing’: Delhi HC on Wikipedia’s refusal to identify ANI page editors
|date13 = October 14, 2024
|org13 = Scroll.in
|url13 = https://scroll.in/latest/1074442/extremely-disturbing-delhi-hc-on-wikipedias-refusal-to-identify-ani-page-editors
|lang13 =
|quote13 =
|archiveurl13 =
|archivedate13 =
|accessdate13 = October 14, 2024
|author14 =
|title14 = Delhi HC slams Wikipedia for its dedicated page on the ongoing lawsuit against it by ANI
|date14 = October 14, 2024
|org14 = The Hindu
|url14 = https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-hc-slams-wikipedia-for-its-dedicated-page-on-the-ongoing-lawsuit-against-it-by-ani/article68753356.ece
|lang14 =
|quote14 =
|archiveurl14 =
|archivedate14 =
|accessdate14 = October 15, 2024
|author15 =
|title15 = Delhi High Court to Wikipedia: You may be world’s powerful entity but we live in a country which …
|date15 = October 14, 2024
|org15 = The Times of India
|url15 = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/delhi-high-court-to-wikipedia-you-may-be-worlds-powerful-entity-but-we-live-in-a-country-which-/articleshow/114222536.cms
|lang15 =
|quote15 =
|archiveurl15 =
|archivedate15 =
|accessdate15 = October 15, 2024
|author16 = Sohini Ghosh
|title16 = Non-transparent system will have to go: Delhi HC pulls up Wikipedia
|date16 = October 15, 2024
|org16 = The Indian Express
|url16 = https://indianexpress.com/article/india/wikipedia-delhi-high-court-ani-9620393/
|lang16 =
|quote16 =
|archiveurl16 =
|archivedate16 =
|accessdate16 = October 15, 2024
|author17 = Abhinav Garg
|title17 = High court warns Wikipedia for bid to put pressure on judge
|date17 = October 15, 2024
|org17 = The Times of India
|url17 = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/high-court-warns-wikipedia-for-bid-to-put-pressure-on-judge/articleshow/114228029.cms
|lang17 =
|quote17 =
|archiveurl17 =
|archivedate17 =
|accessdate17 = October 15, 2024
|author18 = Shruti Kakkar
|title18 = ‘Can’t defame someone’: HC raps Wiki in defamation case
|date18 = October 15, 2024
|org18 = Hindustan Times
|url18 = https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/cant-defame-someone-hc-raps-wiki-in-defamation-case-101728932877321.html
|lang18 =
|quote18 =
|archiveurl18 =
|archivedate18 =
|accessdate18 = October 15, 2024
|author19 = Abhinav Garg
|title19 = Delhi HC closes contempt case against Wikipedia
|date19 = October 22, 2024
|org19 = The Times of India
|url19 = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/delhi-hc-closes-contempt-case-against-wikipedia/articleshow/114442511.cms
|lang19 =
|quote19 =
|archiveurl19 =
|archivedate19 =
|accessdate19 = October 22, 2024
|author20 = Bhavini Srivastava
|title20 = Delhi High Court flags Wikipedia model as "dangerous"
|date20 = October 25, 2024
|org20 = Bar & Bench
|url20 = https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-flags-wikipedia-model-dangerous
|lang20 =
|quote20 =
|archiveurl20 =
|archivedate20 =
|accessdate20 = October 25, 2024
|author21 = Pratik Kanjilal
|title21 = Lessons from Wikipedia
|date21 = October 26, 2024
|org21 = The New Indian Express
|url21 = https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/opinions/2024/Oct/25/lessons-from-wikipedia
|lang21 =
|quote21 =
|archiveurl21 =
|archivedate21 =
|accessdate21 = October 26, 2024
|author22 = Umang Poddar
|title22 = Why Wikipedia has landed in legal trouble in India
|date22 = October 30, 2024
|org22 = BBC
|url22 = https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdrdydkypv7o
|lang22 =
|quote22 =
|archiveurl22 =
|archivedate22 =
|accessdate22 = October 30, 2024
|author23 = Apoorva Mandhani
|title23 = In ANI vs Wikimedia, Round 1 goes to India’s tech law. The US firm has taken a beating twice
|date23 = October 30, 2024
|org23 = ThePrint
|url23 = https://theprint.in/ground-reports/in-ani-vs-wikimedia-round-1-goes-to-indias-tech-law-the-us-co-has-taken-a-beating-twice/2333951/
|lang23 =
|quote23 =
|archiveurl23 =
|archivedate23 =
|accessdate23 = October 30, 2024
|author24 = Sharveya Parasnis
|title24 = Delhi High Court: Why Should Wikipedia Editors Remain Anonymous?
|date24 = November 4, 2024
|org24 = MediaNama
|url24 = https://www.medianama.com/2024/11/223-wikipedia-ani-defamation-lawsuit-anonymity/
|lang24 =
|quote24 =
|archiveurl24 =
|archivedate24 =
|accessdate24 = November 4, 2024
|author25 = Vineet Bhalla
|title25 = A Delhi High Court case could end up threatening how Wikipedia works in India
|date25 = November 5, 2024
|org25 = Scroll.in
|url25 = https://scroll.in/article/1075145/a-delhi-high-court-case-could-end-up-threatening-how-wikipedia-works-in-india
|lang25 =
|quote25 =
|archiveurl25 =
|archivedate25 =
|accessdate25 = November 5, 2024
|author26 = Manisha Pandey
|title26 = Government raps Wikipedia over 'bias', says small group controls edits: Sources
|date26 = November 5, 2024
|org26 = India Today
|url26 = https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indian-government-wikipedia-bias-inaccuracies-small-group-editorial-control-complaint-2628252-2024-11-05
|lang26 =
|quote26 =
|archiveurl26 =
|archivedate26 =
|accessdate26 = November 5, 2024
|author27 = Shruti Kakkar
|title27 = Disclaimer won’t absolve you of anything: HC to Wikipedia
|date27 = November 5, 2024
|org27 = Hindustan Times
|url27 = https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/disclaimer-won-t-absolve-you-of-anything-hc-to-wikipedia-101730744899142.html
|lang27 =
|quote27 =
|archiveurl27 =
|archivedate27 =
|accessdate27 = November 5, 2024
|author28 = Sharveya Parasnis
|title28 = Republic TV to Pursue Legal Action Against Wikipedia, Citing Bias and “Agenda”
|date28 = November 6, 2024
|org28 = MediaNama
|url28 = https://www.medianama.com/2024/11/223-republic-tv-to-pursue-legal-action-against-wikipedia-citing-bias-and-agenda/
|lang28 =
|quote28 =
|archiveurl28 =
|archivedate28 =
|accessdate28 = November 6, 2024
|author29 =
|title29 = Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia users who edited ANI page
|date29 = November 14, 2024
|org29 = The Hindu
|url29 = https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-hc-issues-summons-to-wikipedia-users-who-edited-ani-page/article68868247.ece
|lang29 =
|quote29 =
|archiveurl29 =
|archivedate29 =
|accessdate29 = November 16, 2024
|author30 = Nupur Thapliyal
|title30 = Defamation Suit: Delhi High Court Issues Summons To Users Who 'Edited' ANI's Wikipedia Page
|date30 = November 14, 2024
|org30 = The Hindu
|url30 = https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-wikipedia-page-defamation-275188
|lang30 =
|quote30 =
|archiveurl30 =
|archivedate30 =
|accessdate30 = November 16, 2024
}}
{{Press
|author = Sharveya Parasnis
|title = Wikipedia to Serve Summons to Editors On Behalf Of ANI: Delhi HC
|date = November 14, 2024
|org = MediaNama
|url = https://www.medianama.com/2024/11/223-wikipedia-to-issue-summons-editors-on-behalf-ani-delhi-hc/
|archivedate =
|accessdate = November 16, 2024
|author2 = Vasudevan Mukunth
|title2 = Wikipedia and the ANI defamation suit Explained
|date2 = November 29, 2024
|org2 = The Hindu
|url2 = https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-and-anis-defamation-suit/article68924317.ece
|archivedate2 =
|accessdate2 = December 1, 2024
|author3 = Sharveya Parasnis
|title3 = Wikipedia’s Actions Go Beyond Intermediary Status: ANI To Delhi HC
|date3 = December 16, 2024
|org3 = MediaNama
|url3 = https://www.medianama.com/2024/12/223-wiki-actions-go-beyond-intermediary-status-ani-delhi-hc/
|archivedate3 =
|accessdate3 = December 16, 2024
|url4 = https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-examine-caravan-ken-articles-decide-interim-relief-ani-wikipedia
|title4=Delhi High Court to examine Caravan, Ken articles to decide interim relief in ANI vs Wikipedia
|author4=Bhavini Srivastava
|date4=December 18, 2024
|org4=Bar and Bench
|author5 =
|title5 = Wikipedia under fire again: Economist Sanjeev Sanyal says his profile altered using 'circular referencing'
|date5 = February 23, 2025
|org5 = Business Today (India)
|url5 = https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/wikipedia-under-fire-again-sanjeev-sanyal-says-his-profile-altered-using-circular-referencing-465625-2025-02-23
|archivedate5 =
|accessdate5 = February 23, 2025
|author6 = Ummar Jamal
|title6 = Courts have to be tolerant: Supreme Court on Delhi HC's takedown order against Wikipedia in ANI case
|date6 = March 17, 2025
|org6 = Bar and Bench
|url6 = https://www.barandbench.com/news/courts-have-to-tolerant-supreme-court-delhi-hc-takedown-order-against-wikipedia-ani-case
|archivedate6 =
|accessdate6 = March 18, 2025
|author7 = Amisha Shrivastava
|title7 = "Why Touchy About Comments On Court Proceedings?" Supreme Court On Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page On ANI's Defamation Suit
|date7 = March 17, 2025
|org7 = LiveLaw.in
|url7 = https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/why-touchy-about-comments-on-court-proceedings-supreme-court-on-delhi-hc-order-to-remove-wikipedia-page-on-anis-defamation-suit-286626
|archivedate7 =
|accessdate7 = March 18, 2025
|author8 =
|title8 = ‘The question is about freedom of media’: SC issues notice to ANI after Wikipedia plea
|date8 = March 17, 2025
|org8 = Newslaundry
|url8 = https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/03/17/the-question-is-about-freedom-of-media-sc-issues-notice-to-ani-after-wikipedia-plea
|archivedate8 =
|accessdate8 = March 18, 2025
|author9 = Nupur Thapliyal
|title9 = Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Allegedly Defamatory Description Of ANI On Its Wikipedia Page
|date9 = April 2, 2025
|org9 = LiveLaw
|url9 = https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-defamatory-wikipedia-page-removal-288188
|archivedate9 =
|accessdate9 = April 2, 2025
|author10 =
|title10 = Delhi High Court orders Wikipedia to remove edits on ANI page
|date10 = April 2, 2025
|org10 = Newslaundry
|url10 = https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/04/02/delhi-high-court-orders-wikipedia-to-remove-edits-on-ani-page
|archivedate10 =
|accessdate10 = April 2, 2025
|author11 =
|title11 = In a first, Delhi High Court directs Wikipedia to remove ‘defamatory’ content on news agency ANI
|date11 = April 4, 2025
|org11 = The Indian Express
|url11 = https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/wikipedia-hc-defamatory-content-news-agency-9924033/
|archivedate11 =
|accessdate11 = April 4, 2025
|author12 = Arpan Chaturvedi
|title12 = Wikimedia must remove India content deemed defamatory, court rules
|date12 = April 4, 2025
|org12 = Reuters
|url12 = https://www.reuters.com/world/india/wikimedia-must-remove-india-content-deemed-defamatory-court-rules-2025-04-04/
|archivedate12 =
|accessdate12 = April 4, 2025
|author13 =
|title13 = Wikipedia operator appeals Indian court's order to remove content, sources say
|date13 = April 7, 2025
|org13 = Reuters
|url13 = https://www.reuters.com/world/india/wikipedia-operator-appeals-indian-courts-order-remove-content-sources-say-2025-04-07/
|archivedate13 =
|accessdate13 = April 7, 2025
|author14 = Nupur Thapliyal
|title14 = Wikipedia Moves Delhi High Court Against Order To Take Down Allegedly 'Defamatory' Content On ANI, Hearing Tomorrow
|date14 = April 7, 2025
|org14 = LiveLaw.in
|url14 = https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-wikipedia-order-take-down-defamatory-content-ani-288612
|archivedate14 =
|accessdate14 = April 7, 2025
|author15 =
|title15 = Tragedy of a commons: on Wikimedia and the free flow of information
|date15 = April 7, 2025
|org15 = The Hindu
|url15 = https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/tragedy-of-a-commons-on-wikimedia-and-the-free-flow-of-information/article69419922.ece
|archivedate15 =
|accessdate15 = April 7, 2025
|author16 = Blessy Reji
|title16 = Wikipedia vs ANI: The legal battle so far
|date16 = April 8, 2025
|org16 = The Economic Times
|url16 = https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/wikipedia-vs-ani-the-legal-battle-so-far/articleshow/120085351.cms?from=mdr
|archivedate16 =
|accessdate16 = April 8, 2025
|author17 =
|title17 = Remove defamatory content about ANI, Delhi HC tells Wikipedia
|date17 = April 9, 2025
|org17 = The Hindu
|url17 = https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/remove-defamatory-content-about-ani-delhi-hc-tells-wikipedia/article69427896.ece
|archivedate17 =
|accessdate17 = April 9, 2025
|author18 = Ritwik Choudhury
|title18 = Relief for Wikipedia as Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court order to take down defamatory edits against ANI
|date18 = April 17, 2025
|org18 = Bar and Bench
|url18 = https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/relief-wikipedia-supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-high-court-order-take-down-defamatory-edits-against-ani
|archivedate18 =
|accessdate18 = April 19, 2025
|author19 =
|title19 = A welcome move: On Wikipedia and Supreme Court order
|date19 = April 19, 2025
|org19 = The Hindu
|url19 = https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-welcome-move-on-wikipedia-and-supreme-court-order/article69465732.ece
|archivedate19 =
|accessdate19 = April 19, 2025
|author20 = Rohit Singh
|title20 = Wikipedia Tax-Exempt Status at Risk As US Attorney Demands Transparency on Content Moderation
|date20 = April 28, 2025
|org20 = MediaNama
|url20 = https://www.medianama.com/2025/04/223-us-attorney-asks-wikipedia-to-reveal-content-moderation-policies/
|archivedate20 =
|accessdate20 = April 28, 2025
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age =720
| archiveprefix =Talk:Asian News International/Archive
| numberstart =1
| maxarchsize =150000
| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads =5
| format = %%i
}}
New comment from WMF
{{disdis|14.139.114.222|spi=DavidWood11}}
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Update_on_developments_in_India. My reading: No guidance regarding article-content at this time. Do your WP-best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:I agree. I don't want guidance from WMF, and I'm glad they don't want to give it. We can make this article comply with policy on our own, and our policies should prevent trouble with any reasonable government. Valereee (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKVG3WNEWJg OPTIMISM, CAPTAIN!] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::Valereee........ thats a great idea if we can make policies to comply with the court oerders as and when they come. for starters, could you remove the defamatory content about Chhatrapati Sambhaji, for which another legal case planter has been sown and [https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/4-wikipedia-editors-booked-over-factual-inaccuracies-about-chhatrapati-sambhaji-101740129800722.html 4 Wikipedia editors booked over factual inaccuracies about Chhatrapati Sambhaji ]? 14.139.114.222 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Court orders will be for WMF to deal with. Wikipedians can, perhaps, find a WP:CONSENSUS to somewhat adapt to them within WP:s policies and guidelines, but consensus can change. Of course, you are welcome to suggest a WP-policy that states WP-content must follow any direction from an Indian court immediately, not on this talkpage though. I think I remember one ANI-lawyer complaining "They keep adding things to the article!" Yes, that's what supposed to happen here. Afaict, the basic WP-problem in the ANI case is that what ANI wants clashes with WP:NPOV, WP:PAID etc. See closing comment and discussion at Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder/Archive_3#RfC:_Name_of_victim for an example, where I actually think everybody (Wikipedians, court and WMF) was reasonably happy. Ping to @Tamzin since I'm talking about you.
:::In the case of WP and Sambhaji (seems to be in the news again [https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/maharashtra-cyber-urges-centre-to-block-wikipedia-proton-mail-101744399169955.html today], btw), I don't see Wikipedians easily agreeing to "A court says we can't use these historians as refs? Ok then." If a court or the gov issues an order on that, we'll see what the WMF does in that particular case. If the ANI-thing is any guide, they'll probably object. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::::IP, sorry for the lack of clarity; to be clear: I do not believe WP should make our policies comply with court orders. I believe if we scrupulously follow current policy, we are on firm ground that any reasonable court will agree with. No, I'm not going to remove any content at Sambhaji, that's for editors there to decide. And I don't care about political grandstanding/axe grinding by Maharashtra Cyber. Clearly there are factions that want to make sure their own version of history is what Wikipedia says, to the point they'd rather shut down Wikipedia in India than not get their own way. Valereee (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::*{{tq|Wikipedians can, perhaps, find a WP:CONSENSUS to somewhat adapt to them within WP:s policies and guidelines, but consensus can change.}} I actually disagree. We can only obey them to an extent; we are ultimately bound by WP:5P, which means that court orders that violate WP:NPOV cannot be followed even with consensus, ie. a consensus that would put a court order above NPOV is invalid because NPOV is non-negotiable. WP:OFFICE actions can override this because they can override everything (Wikipedia still exists in the real world, which trumps our policies) but editor consensus cannot. --Aquillion (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
"Propaganda"
{{disdis|JudgeMistry|spi=DavidWood11}}
Where is the wording that ANI is "propaganda" for the Indian government coming from? Is this supported by The Ken, Caravan or both? Please provide exact quotes that use the word "propaganda" to describe ANI. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:The Caravan article uses the term descriptively throughout its long investigative piece on ANI. One example is {{tq|Throughout its history, ANI has remained ensconced in the power circles of Lutyens’ Delhi, and has a disturbing history of producing blatant propaganda for the state.}} See [https://web.archive.org/web/20190724155425/https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ani-reports-government-version-truth here] for a full version of the article. SilverserenC 03:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::Is it possible that the court only reviewed [https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ani-reports-government-version-truth the paywalled version] that was linked in the citation template, which only shows the first three paragraphs of the full article? These three paragraphs do not mention the term propaganda before you reach the subscription banner that blocks the remainder of the article. I've modified the citation template to use [https://web.archive.org/web/20190724155425/https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ani-reports-government-version-truth the unpaywalled version] as the primary citation link in Special:Diff/1285328780/1285335952. If the court or any other reader were to review the article and its citations right now, they would be able to access the full unpaywalled Caravan article without a subscription. — Newslinger talk 03:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Going through the link of the archives version as given by silverseren . It looks the articles are pure speculative with no evidence given in support of their speculations. The courts has rightly observed. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::The Caravan article incorporates interviews with numerous people associated with ANI, so I disagree with your opinion. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::The Caravan article is a highly detailed, meticulously documented report that covers ANI's history, controversies, and relationship with the Indian government. The {{xt|"...has a disturbing history of producing blatant propaganda for the state"}} and {{xt|"As the 2019 general election approaches, ANI will be a formidable tool in the hands of the ruling party in its bid to come back to power"}} claims are unambiguous. However, the article does not use the exact phrase {{!xt|"propaganda tool"}} and should not be quoted as a source for that exact phrase, per the principle of minimal change. The cited [https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/09/18/ani-news-european-experts-kashmir Newslaundry article] and Ken article do not use that exact phrase, either. Because of this, I have rephrased our article to remove the {{!xt|"propaganda tool"}} quote and replace it with the {{xt|"a disturbing history of producing blatant propaganda for the state"}} quote, attributed solely to The Caravan, in Special:Diff/1285364130. — Newslinger talk 08:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::The Delhi High Court's [https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS08042025FAOOS412025_110145.pdf Appellate bench judgment of 8th April 2025] at paras 31,32 and 33 (still in force notwithstanding the Supreme Court judgment of 17.April) cautions Wikipedia editors (chilling effect) against reproducing "one sided / non-neutral" text from other sources unless they are prepared to take personal responsibility for such reproduction. JudgeMistry (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::So we need to know what that text is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
: I am unable to find an unpaywalled version of [https://the-ken.com/story/ani-video-news-monopoly/ "How ANI quietly built a monopoly"] from The Ken that would be usable as a citation link. Someone on Reddit uploaded a screenshot of the full unpaywalled article to Imgur, but posting a link to that screenshot on Wikipedia would be a violation of the "Linking to copyrighted works" (WP:COPYLINK) policy.{{pb}}Unless I missed something, The Ken{{'s}} article does not explicitly use the term propaganda. It does have one section (titled {{xt|"Politically correct"}}) that describes ANI's close relationship to the ruling party of the Indian government{{emdash}}regardless of the party that is in power{{emdash}}which helped ANI obtain its monopoly status. However, its sentences such as {{xt|"While they maintained connections with the Congress during its time in power in the 1980s and 1990s, they were quick to court the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) when the tide seemed to be shifting"}} do not adequately support the propaganda descriptor. In contrast to the highly critical Caravan article, I do not consider the Ken article to be criticism of ANI.{{pb}}In light of these findings, I've rephrased various sentences of our article to avoid attributing the propaganda descriptor to The Ken and to avoid claiming that The Ken has {{!xt|"criticised"}} ANI in its reporting in Special:Diff/1285364130. — Newslinger talk 08:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::Going through the link of the archives version as given by silverseren . It looks the articles are pure speculative with no evidence given in support of their speculations. The courts has rightly observed. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::So? they have been published and not retracted, so we can comment on them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::This has already been rebutted by Newslinger. CommissarDoggoTalk? 10:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Rebuttel by the editing community should be produced in the court while hearing was going on. The court do asked the editor involved in court but as I know, no body from the editing community presented their view in court other than WMF and ANI. now the court has reserved its order in absence of the wikipedia editors community. I am not pretty sure , what courts do when one amongst many party choose to absent let's wait for the judjement. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::And if we attribute the claimes WE are not makign any accusations, just reiterating ones in the public sphere,. thus We are obeying the court order by not amming a direct accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::And honestly, I am not going into that argument of "accusation" any further. If I really have to justify the validity of the "claims" of the atteibutions I should have done this in front of the judges . 152.59.63.251 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::And we are only repeating what RS say, so as long as we do not say it is true, we are not making any accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I would gently suggest that the courts in India do not agree with this rationale. I have linked to the Appellate Court's judgment of 8 April earlier on this talk page. Paras 31 through 33. JudgeMistry (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Does it, or does it say we can't say its true, we need to know what actual wording is being objected to. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That is now purely between ANI and the Wikimedia Foundation. If now WMF does not delete the specific text that ANI specifies, it will be WMF which will be responsible (not those 3 editors). JudgeMistry (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::What specific text? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::ANI wants a specific version which existed in 2019. JudgeMistry (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Which version? Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::A version of 26 Feb 2019 which is reproduced in the [https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/SMP02042025S5242024_212323.pdf first judgment] JudgeMistry (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::So this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=885186405? Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::We can't change anything from that version, and can never alter it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I am happy to see the article reset to that version and locked forever. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Aside from an office action, which is not a decision made by the English Wikipedia community, there is no basis in the protection policy (WP:PP) to permanently protect any version of an article. Additionally, that 2019 version lacks coverage from reliable sources, including The Caravan and The Ken, which has gained due weight as a result of media coverage of this court case. Excluding due content would be a violation of the neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV). — Newslinger talk 03:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Maybe, but if this is the version authorised by the indian court, and if WMF enforces that ruling, this has to be the only version we are allowed. This is why we need speocif text to remove, and not just a vague date to reset to. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::None of that matters. We (as editors) do not directly care what the courts say. The WMF has lawyers that will handle that, so we just have to follow instructions from the WMF if they give them to us. Right now there are no such instructions, so we should not allow the court proceedings to influence us in any way, shape, or form. The WMF's lawyers are capable of deciding when it's necessary to cover their ass (as we've seen) and they're not doing that right now, so we should write the article according to our policy and never according to vague handwavy fears by individual editors with no legal expertise. The entire reason Wikipedia:No legal threats exists is because editors are not qualified to or appropriate to evaluate such threats; that's the WMF's job. Kindly leave it to them. --Aquillion (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
"Kangaroo Court" ?
{{disdis|JudgeMistry|spi=DavidWood11}}
{{archive top| This page is about how to improve the ANI article, it is not for meta complaints about editor conduct. The place to take such disputes is WP:ANI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC) }}
I have noticed a distressing trend by several editors (while discussing this lawsuit) to describe Indian superior courts as "kangaroo courts". This is a form of racism which should be deprecated and avoided, especially on talk pages of this portal. JudgeMistry (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:Then I suggest that you find reliable sources that label it "racism" and add it to the page on Kangaroo court. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
A, this is a conduct issue, so take it to wp:ani. B, as far as I can see it's one user. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:It may be a single user on this talk page, but several editors have used the term on the other discussion pages for this law suit. In this context, The Supreme Court of India on 17th April has not disagreed with the reasoning of the Delhi High Court's detailed and reasoned judgments of 2nd April and 8th April respectively declaring Wikipedia's business model as absurd and contradictory, but only held that the reliefs granted to ANI were too broad to be enforced without further specification by ANI. JudgeMistry (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::Which is why this can only be dealt with by an ANI, as this affects more than one article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::As a legal professional, I do not feel comfortable discussing it on an unmoderated crowed sourced forum like WP:ANI where non-lawyers can also post messages. JudgeMistry (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::That is how we deal with bad editing. If you are now willing to do it, then this can't be actioned and is a waste of time. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
[[Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation]]
Now that this article is open again, we can consider shortening the Asian_News_International#Wikimedia_Foundation stuff a bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:I also suggest updating the other ongoing cases with ANI, particularly Open AI. This has seen many intervenors and there have been more hearings since the last update. Given the critical issues it touches, I think this one should have a separate article like ANI v. Wikimedia Case.
:https://trademarklawyermagazine.com/indian-music-industry-files-intervention-application-in-ani-v-openai-copyright-case/ 164.152.142.245 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
::There actually is a separate article called "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation". I hope that helps. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
May 2025 Extortion allegations
There have been allegations of unfair copyright strikes by ANI as a means of extortion of large sums of money by a number of Indian YouTubers. I believe that should be added to the article as well. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, this is ideally covered under the Free Use provision. https://www.medianama.com/2025/05/223-ani-copyright-strikes-youtubers-fair-use/ What sort of vanity projects is ANI running, silencing free speech? They're the monopoly holders with videos because of their connections with the government and now are cracking down on YouTubers. Let's include a section on this. Prakash family seems to be a curse for Indian creators and news.
:Watch this video by this YouTuber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL7tCjIQNd8 2607:F598:B03A:3A0:B499:A970:B8B4:EE6D (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
:If people are using video content from ANI without permission then that can be copyright infringement if this is in violation of India's fair dealing statue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
::@Hemiauchenia: If you had read [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9783148?hl=en YouTube's Fair Policy], you wouldn't be asking this question. And anyway, ANI has turned this into a business. This section is very important to include. You can read the full report related to [https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/ani-finds-business-niche-in-copyright-claims-against-youtubers this here]. Baqi:) (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
::: I'm not one to support ANI in any way, but you could argue that YouTubers using ANI content, when (a) ANI is known to be very litigious in terms of copyright, and (b) India's "fair dealing" laws are very vague, may not exactly be the brightest. Why not use your own content? Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@Black Kite: Thanks, the issue here is not about stealing someone’s content, the real issue is that ANI intimidates creators and extorts money from them. They pressure creators to buy subscriptions forcefully, and they’ve even gotten many creators’ channels shut down. This is nothing short of extortion. Baqi:) (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I've written a section on this in the "Litigation" section that I think is reasonably balanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Using words like "aggressive" is not exactly balanced. And "known for" without a timeline make it sound as though ANI has done it for a long time, but what's certain for sure that it comes to light only in May 2025. – robertsky (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you @Hemiauchenia. Baqi:) (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/05/28/ani-files-defamation-suit-against-youtuber-mohak-mangal They have sued the YouTuber who called them out. 2607:F598:B03A:240:7905:1650:34F2:6EDF (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)