Talk:Asian News International#wording

"[https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-defamatory-wikipedia-page-removal-288188 “Prayer 2 and 3 granted,” Justice Prasad said while pronouncing the order. Prayer 2 of the interim injunction plea sought a direction on Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content against ANI on its Wikipedia page as well as to restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency. Delhi High Court Prayer 3 sought a direction on Wikipedia to remove the protection status imposed on the ANI page.]"

From livelaw.in. I guess we'll see what the Wikimedia Foundation does with its Wikipedia page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:This should be interesting. Valereee (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::I wonder if the idea here is: If the protection/WP:BLUELOCK is removed, then ANI-reps can edit the article without having to arse themselves to become expended confirmed, and if someone changes what the ANI-reps edit, then ANI can demand that those someones show up in Indian courts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Which means no editor located in India should make those reverts. Valereee (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Don't you use telepathy on me. But yes, it's a clear ANI-message of "Indians shouldn't edit Indian topics, they'll get sued if they do." Of course, non-Indians might get sued too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::hahaha...yeah, this is pretty chilling for editors in India right now. I hope to hell we win in the Supreme Court. Valereee (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Here's hoping. It worked in Turkey. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes but non-indians can say "FUCK YOU". Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Courts in India are acting odd. Will courts also start banning pages of all other media who have published report on ANI or other news media? And the court had earlier even ordered the identities of editors to be revealed to them. Nathularog (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::My reaction precisely. Fantastic Mr. Fox 20:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Slatersteven they have extradition laws too for Non-Indians, no need to be too happy this time. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, but they also have to then apply for extradition, which must be proved in a UK court to be valid. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe it will be challenged at the Supreme court of India. GrabUp - Talk 10:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, I'm sure it will be. That's where this was headed all along. But in order to get there, WMF might decide to avoid contempt of court -- which if I understood correctly they did when they blacklocked the article about the case, would prevent being able to appeal -- by complying with the lower court's ruling while it files the appeal. Valereee (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I guess you could helpfully remove the article protection if you like. I'm not sure what would happen then, but I'm interested to find out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::If I had to guess, nothing good - or at least nothing constructive. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What are you, familiar with Wikipedia or something!? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Why not at all, in fact, I was just born yesterday! CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Curiosity killed the cat. :D I actually think I may arguably be involved, which feels very meta. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::@GrabUp Challenged in Supreme Court! So what? There is already democratic backsliding going on in India. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Xhivetozaragrivropa: You should see this: [https://www.business-standard.com/amp/india-news/supreme-court-questions-wikipedia-page-takedown-in-ani-defamation-case-125040400882_1.html 'Why so touchy?' Supreme Court slams Delhi HC for Wikipedia takedown order]. GrabUp - Talk 13:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me we need a COI tag, and maybe a NNPOV tag. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:On this talkpage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::No on the article, the indian courts have now said COI editors can edit, in order to put the companies POV. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Which of course won't be "putting the companies POV", it'll be "removing the negative material". Since that leaves editors in the unenviable position of having to put the material back (and therefore putting themselves in ANIs focus), I wonder if the article should actually be admin-only for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::"We told them to remove the lock, they made it worse." The court will love that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: Alternatively we could remove the protection completely, then if the above happens people could restore the material using anonymous proxies, which are of course pretty much untraceable. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)#

::::::Unless Wikipedia changes the rules, I will do it without being anonymous. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedians will do what they'll do, and then talk about what they did. But apart from that, it's possible that WMF will take some sort of action, office action or make a comment like they did at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder/Archive 4#Wikimedia Foundation statement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::At this point, that would be preemptively , the bluelock is still there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Honestly, until there's an office action, I think it should stay locked. There's no question this will be appealed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, in WP-verse, the lock makes sense, for WP:COI/WP:PAID editing and other reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Btw, I don't suppose this means that the court case that lead to the takedown of Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation now is concluded? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:And the Supreme Court has already said the high court was being silly about that.

:Does anyone know where to find the documents that specify exactly what content ANI is alleging is defamatory? Valereee (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::See Talk:Asian News International/Archive 1#ANI sues WMF for defamation - basically it's the part where the article mentions that sources have called them propaganda. Ravensfire (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Some of the articles linked in the Mentioned by Media section at the top of the talk page also cover the demand in more detail. It's basically what you would expect - remove anything bad, let us say what we want in Wikipedia's voice and don't you (Wikipedia) dare tell us otherwise. Ravensfire (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::So we do not put it in Wikipedia's voice. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Right now it's attributed. In the lead, the sources are called out by name that did the investigations. At the time of the filing it wasn't as clear but our article said {{tq|been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions}}, so somewhat attributed and not fully saying "... is a propaganda tool". ANI wants all of that removed based on the demand - nothing negative allowed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::But (surely) the ruling is based upon what then plantif have said we said, which we have altred. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::ANI has said the version of the article they were complaining about is not on the record and asked that it be placed into the record, so I'm assuming it's about what the article said the day they filed, not what it says today? It's pretty clear ANI don't really understand how Wikipedia works. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-05-12&end=2025-04-01&pages=Asian_News_International Or the Streisand Effect]. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Back in December the High Court had said it needed to review the article and its sources...does this interim ruling mean the court has done that and decided the alleged defamatory content is false? I don't really understand what's at Defamation#India, but there's nothing in that section that says anything about whether what has been said is true or false. Which makes no sense. Valereee (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The statement occupies 25% of the lead when it is significantly lesser in the the content by percentage at Asian_News_International#Bias_and_propaganda.

:::::::I suggest rewording to shorten it from

:::::::{{tq|Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company have alleged that ANI has been closely associated with the government of India for decades, including under Congress Party rule, but especially after the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, with its reporting alleged to favour and serve as a "propaganda tool" for the government's agenda.}}

:::::::something similar to

:::::::{{tq|Reports by various news organisations such as The Caravan, The Ken, and Newslaundry, and a study that analysed Twitter engagement of BJP members of parliament reveal that ANI's coverage of the BJP government has been favourable.}}

:::::::This would bring in the other sources as well and at the same time shortening the lead. – robertsky (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The court: [https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/wikipedia-hc-defamatory-content-news-agency-9924033/ "On perusal of the page pertaining to the Plaintiff (ANI), it appears that the statements…are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pages."] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Also "Defendant No.1 professes itself to be an encyclopaedia and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on the web pages of Defendant No.1 as gospel truth. The responsibility, therefore, of Defendant No.1 is higher, [the court] stated." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Also from the same piece: {{xt|Justice Prasad observed that the alleged defamatory statements on ANI’s Wikipedia page “are not verbatim reproduction” of articles cited as sources, “and these impugned statements are written in such a way which is totally contradictory to the intent with which these articles were written and the impugned statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff on the Platform of Defendant No. 1 are devoid of the context of the articles. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned statements are ex-facie defamatory and tarnishes the professional reputation of the Plaintiff.}} I think the judge is telling us, "you need to quote and attribute". And honestly, if it's true that "statements ... are devoid of the context of the articles", then that's really bad. Anyone who is giving an opinion here needs to go back and read the Ken, Caravan, and NewsLaundry sources again to see if that is true, because if it is, we need to fix it. Valereee (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I was hoping that had happened, pretty much, since this thing has been ongoing for awhile and been re-written with more quotes etc. But since I haven't done it myself, I can't vouch for it. But of course we should aim for the article being WP-good, including citing WP:RS, in-text-attributing when reasonable, WP:LEAD-adherence etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Perhaps we should start a RFC on "Is the article WP-good regarding sources, content and NPOV?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Or at least those sections of the article that deal with criticism of ANI. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::...That would possibly exclude the Asian_News_International#Establishment_and_early_years_(1971–2000) section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Also wondered at court's "is higher". Higher than what? [https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page SikiWiki]? india.gov.in? ANI? Any source we cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I suggest that an ambox be added at the top saying that "Delhi HC thinks Wikipedia's paraphrasing of the sources is misleading. So here's a list of sources, read yourself." in a more professional and encyclopedic tone. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So if we no longer use the wording they complained about, are we not in fact obeying the court order, or does it require us to remove ALL mention of it (even in regard to the case about it)? Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Who knows. We should probably not do anything out of the ordinary until our own lawyers (via WMF Office) tell us we have to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure about that. The WMF has said, correctly, that it doesn't control content. If they tell us to change something, they can't make that argument.

::I think we keep editing the article as usual, and if consensus here changes, we make those changes even if the changes coincide with the opinions of the court.

::If someone who appeared to be smart and well-intentioned came in here and said, "The lead sounds too much like WikiVoice, those articles we're sourcing to are all opinion pieces, we need to attribute to make that clear", we'd discuss. The viewpoint of at least one smart and presumably well-intentioned reader is no different. Let's not dig in our heels because we disapprove of this lawsuit. Let's make the article as good as we can make it. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::True, and if they had had one they would not have NEEDED TO GO TO COURT TO GET THEIR WAY. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::If they'd had one what? Valereee (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If someone has a well-reasoned policy-based argument, you do not need to go to court to get us to obey it, we will support the edit. Then fact they took this to court to get their way, means they did not have a well-reasoned policy-based argument. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sounds like we agree. I said {{tq|we should probably not do anything out of the ordinary}}, which doesn't seem to contradict what you're saying. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I just meant not waiting for our lawyers to tell us to remove content, because they probably can't. But, yes, removing problematic content is ordinary. :) Valereee (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Should we consider The Caravan and The Ken unusable as sources because they are also Indian media and therefor not relevant when they write about what's potentially a competitor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think so? I mean, if the NYT reports about WaPo, or vice versa, we'd believe them. If they're RS, we can use them. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Agree. Anyone want to argue they're not RS as we use them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::A policy discussion from 2020 found consensus against disqualifying media organisations as reliable sources solely because they report negative information about competing media organisations. I support retaining the content from The Caravan and The Ken in this article. — Newslinger talk 06:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Sounds like a reasonable consensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• [https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/litigation/how-can-court-be-so-touchy-supreme-court-on-delhi-hc-order-to-takedown-ani-v-wikipedia-page “How can court be so touchy? Supreme Court on Delhi HC order to takedown ANI v Wikipedia page”]; Today, during the hearing regarding the taken-down article. GrabUp - Talk 12:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :[https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/SMP/judgement/03-04-2025/&name=SMP02042025S5242024_212323.pdf Here] is the Delhi High Court's full judgment, in case anyone wants to read it. GrabUp - Talk 14:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::It is interesting to read the full judgment, detailed. GrabUp - Talk 15:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.reuters.com/world/india/wikimedia-must-remove-india-content-deemed-defamatory-court-rules-2025-04-04/ Reuters, which owns a 26% stake in ANI, did not respond to a request for comment. It has previously said it is not involved in ANI's business practices or operations.] Well, that source must be considered very reliable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:I find it completely bizarre that Reuters owns a big chunk of ANI. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Valereee, apparently WMF is appealing[https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-wikipedia-order-take-down-defamatory-content-ani-288612][https://www.reuters.com/world/india/wikipedia-operator-appeals-indian-courts-order-remove-content-sources-say-2025-04-07/], if not to the SC just yet. [https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/tragedy-of-a-commons-on-wikimedia-and-the-free-flow-of-information/article69419922.ece This] was a little encouraging. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, wow, and that seems to be an editorial, not just an opinion piece. Yes, I find that encouraging, too. Valereee (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:One a side note, I connected to an Indian VPN server and found that the donation is resumed. GrabUp - Talk 08:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is what the lead currently says, and the sources we're sourcing to. Some are behind paywalls; the archive.org version of The Caravan is also behind a paywall, so if anyone can find it on another site, let's add that here so people can read. Ditto The Ken. Please, anyone who wants to work on this: Read the sources, keeping in mind overall context of that source and whether it's at least partially an opinion piece. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

{{xt|Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company have alleged that ANI has been closely associated with the government of India for decades, including under Congress Party rule, but especially after the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, with its reporting alleged to favour and serve as a "propaganda tool" for the government's agenda.{{Cite web |url=https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ani-reports-government-version-truth |title=The Image Makers : How ANI Reports The Government's Version Of Truth |last=Donthi |first=Praveen |date=1 March 2019 |website=The Caravan |language=en |url-access=subscription |access-date=7 December 2019 |archive-date=8 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230208225504/https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ani-reports-government-version-truth |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |last1=Ahluwalia |first1=Harveen |last2=Srivilasan |first2=Pranav |date=21 October 2018 |title=How ANI quietly built a monopoly |url=https://the-ken.com/story/ani-video-news-monopoly/ |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230116213511/https://the-ken.com/story/ani-video-news-monopoly/ |archive-date=16 January 2023 |access-date=28 December 2019 |website=The Ken |language=en-US}} ANI has been accused of amplifying a vast network of fake news websites spreading pro-government, anti-Pakistan, and anti-China propaganda,{{cite news |last1=Hussain |first1=Abid |last2=Menon |first2=Shruti |date=10 December 2020 |title=The dead professor and the vast pro-India disinformation campaign |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55232432 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112173402/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55232432 |archive-date=12 November 2022 |access-date=10 December 2020 |work=BBC News |quote=The network was designed primarily to "discredit Pakistan internationally" and influence decision-making at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and European Parliament, EU DisinfoLab said.}}{{cite news |last1=Saeed |first1=Saim |last2=Kayali |first2=Laura |date=9 December 2020 |title=New pro-India EU website enrolling MEPs campaigns against Pakistan |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/india-pakistan-website-european-parliament-campaign-eu-chronicle-china/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210106123319/https://www.politico.eu/article/india-pakistan-website-european-parliament-campaign-eu-chronicle-china/ |archive-date=6 January 2021 |access-date=9 December 2020 |work=Politico}}{{cite web |title=EU Non-Profit Unearths Massive Indian Disinformation Campaign |url=https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/eu-non-profit-unearths-massive-indian-disinformation-campaign/ |website=The Diplomat |date=12 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112173403/https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/eu-non-profit-unearths-massive-indian-disinformation-campaign/ |archive-date=12 November 2022 |url-status=live |last1=Rej |first1=Abhijnan |access-date=11 December 2020 |language=en-US}} as well as quoting apparently fabricated sources associated with these websites.{{cite web |author= |date=23 February 2023 |title=Modi Govt's Go-To News Agency ANI 'Quotes Geopolitical Experts, Think Tanks That Don't Exist': Report |url=https://thewire.in/media/ani-eu-disinfolab-bad-sources |access-date=19 September 2024 |website=The Wire (India) |language=en |archive-date=12 February 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240212202409/https://thewire.in/media/ani-eu-disinfolab-bad-sources |url-status=live }}}}

{{reflist talk}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:The archive.today site might be of help. Remember also that the WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of article content and getting the body right (if it isn't) should perhaps come first. I'm all for improving the article from the WP-POV (WP:GA, perhaps?) but per court statement

:"[https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/wikipedia-hc-defamatory-content-news-agency-9924033/ On perusal of the page pertaining to the Plaintiff (ANI), it appears that the statements…are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pages.]"

:I think it's possible that this court will consider any source we use that's not ANI itself to be "but editorials and opinionated pages." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Which should be fine, if anything that could reasonably be interpreted as opinion are quoted and attributed, and we're paying attention to context when that's relevant to whatever we're quoting. I started with the lead only because it's a short paragraph sourced to six articles, several of which are fairly short, and it seemed like a manageable thing to bite off first. If we find things that concern us there, I'd suggest we start the relevant portions of the sections from scratch. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Valereee: Here is the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190724155425/https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ani-reports-government-version-truth Caravan article] without Paywall, (wait a little bit to load the page). GrabUp - Talk 15:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you! Valereee (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wait, I thought adding links to archived versions of paywalled articles wasn't appropriate. Did i get it wrong? Are they allowed? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 12:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::There is no policy prohibiting the use of archived versions of paywalled articles. In fact, {{tl|Cite web}} and similar citation templates are specifically designed to show the unpaywalled archive link as the primary link in the citation when the source is currently paywalled. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, great. Thanks. I understood that using the paywalled sources for articles is fine, but I was under the impression that that adding such links that bypass it on places like talk pages would be copyvio. Like, say for cover arts, we're very strict with using them only in music articles about the work title itself for fair use and making them inferior to the original, so i thought it would be the same for this. But never mind. Maybe use this instead; I've had this for a while now, but i didn't share since i was doubtful: [https://archive.is/2019.12.22-020049/https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ani-reports-government-version-truth The Caravan] (this one loads instantly). {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 12:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Valereee: I have sent you an email with a screenshot of the article from The Ken. GrabUp - Talk 19:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{disdis|14.139.114.222|spi=DavidWood11}}

According to the [https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/SMP/judgement/03-04-2025/&name=SMP02042025S5242024_212323.pdf court judgment], the most recent version of the article evaluated by the court was Special:Permalink/1225975321, timestamped 21:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC), which falls on {{xt|"the date of filing of the instant application"}}. This article has changed substantially since that date, with sentences rephrased to use in-text attribution in an unambiguous way. For example, here is the second paragraph of the lead section on 27 May 2024 compared to its current version (with citations deduplicated):

{{st}}

In the 27 May 2024 version, the ambiguous phrasing {{!xt|"been criticized for"}} could be interpreted as a series of claims in Wikipedia's voice:

1. A claim that ANI has {{xt|"served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government"}}
2. A claim that ANI has been {{xt|"distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites"}}
3. A claim that ANI has been {{xt|"misreporting events"}}
4. A claim that ANI has {{xt|"been criticized for"}} doing all of the above

It seems like the court viewed some portion of claims 1–3 as defamatory, despite the presence of the accompanying citations. The current 8 April 2025 version has replaced the ambiguous phrase {{!xt|"been criticized for"}} with the unambiguous phrases {{xt|"have alleged that"}} and {{xt|"been accused of"}} that clearly attribute claims 1–3 to other parties, which eliminates the possibility of interpreting claims 1–3 as unattributed statements in Wikipedia's voice.

Considering the above, could the current version of this article already be compliant with Indian regulations? — Newslinger talk 06:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am not sure, maybe the appropriate version would have been communicated to WMF OR WMF takes action sou-motu from their side and might not involve editors. Anything could be possible. 14.139.114.222 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Interesting question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would say "ANI has been accused" needs a to be "ANI has been accused by BBC, Politico, and The Diplomat..." and then later "by The Wire". Valereee (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe we need to be told what is wrong with the current article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd drop a {{bywhom}} on a "has been accused" statement if I noticed it anywhere. I don't really need someone else to tell me that's a problematic statement. Valereee (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::IMO there's a WP:LEAD-summary issue to consider, if the body expands on "by BBC, Politico, and The Diplomat", it's ok writing not mentioning them in the lead. And of course, I think the DHC will consider it nothing but editorials and opinionated pages either way. But I will not revert you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree it's okay not mentioning them in the lead, but if we're getting ongoing pushback, it's also okay to include them in the lead. Valereee (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Can we mention it in connection with the court case? Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Can you clarify what you're thinking of? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::We may need to mention in the lede they sued WMF, and why. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I wouldn't see a mention of that in the lead as UNDUE. Certainly that's one of the most-frequent inclusions in recent RS mentions of this article subject. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think this would do: In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, claiming to have been defamed in its Wikipedia article for being described as serving as a propaganda tool for the incumbent government of India. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 17:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I've made a stab at it. Everyone should feel free to edit heavily, I literally just copied over the first and last sentences of the section with citations. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Only that if you read all four of them, you'd notice that they are all just essentially quoting the report by EU DisinfoLab. We really don't need to be attributing each and every source—the references exist for a reason, and that is precisely this. This is just overkill, really. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 16:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't disagree, but at a contentious topic, which this is, when we're getting significant pushback, there's no actual harm in formatting this in a way that it helps minimize the need to explain that leads don't need citations, etc. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Right, and that is why we've added the references in the lead. And now we're to quote each source as well? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 17:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::We didn't quote, we just attributed. But I actually wouldn't object to quoting, myself. It's an important aspect of this subject. Maybe one of the most important: highly respected other media are saying derogatory things about them. I'd support quoting. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Quoting seems best, that way is can't be defamation, as the source for the quote has not been sued. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree. The challenge would be how do we be brief in the lead? Valereee (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Something in the line of "As of 2025, there is ongoing litigation regarding the ANI WP-article." However, this is a recent thing, even if it currently has a lot of article content, because it's ongoing and interesting for the Wikipedians. But because it's recent, I don't think it's necessary to add to the WP:LEAD at this point. As part of ANI-history as a whole, it's a blip, and putting it in the lead appears to me as approaching WP:NAVELGAZING (that essay is an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Agreed. This an article about ANI, not ANI's relationship with Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::And if the Supreme Court let us have the other article, we can move some of this stuff over there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::And re-start the discussion on if we should use "threatened" or another word... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::It's the only right word to use; if I remember correctly, that's what the sources used. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 18:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Some sources used it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::lol Valereee (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I feel like this has gained in importance in the past year. Navel-gazing seems like it's not a problem when every recent RS is mentioning this and even in the long term it is a large portion. Valereee (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Apologies for the typo, I meant to write attribute*. About quoting, I couldn't agree more. The sources are lengthy, so it might take some time, but i plan to do it when i am expanding the article's body. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 17:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The names of the judges is in or text in the reporting about Supreme Court. That bench included Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan who were adjudicating on case’s article takedown. 2603:7000:9AF0:8720:4124:8617:A0BC:778B (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The names of the judges about the Supreme Court hearing is incorrect*

::::::::It wasn’t justice Gavai but Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan who were adjudicating on case’s article takedown challenge. 2603:7000:9AF0:8720:4124:8617:A0BC:778B (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{fixed}}. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 18:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{disdis|14.139.114.222|spi=DavidWood11}}

{{tq|The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld a single judge direction asking Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia platform, to take down allegedly defamatory content and description of news agency ANI Media Private Limited. A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however stayed the direction on Wikipedia to remove the protection status imposed on the ANI page. It further stayed the direction seeking to restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency.The division bench observed that the single judge had given detailed reasoning as to the defamatory nature of the impugned content and legal position of defamation suit. Furthermore, it ordered that whenever ANI writes an email to Wikipedia regarding any further allegedly defamatory content on its page, Wikipedia would be liable to follow the IT Rules and if such a content is not taken down within 36 hours, ANI can approach the Court by filing a fresh application.}} -- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-uphold-wikipedia-defamed-ani-288811 Upd Edit (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:What content? Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Means ANI could write an email to WMF and pull down content deemed defamatory. :D:D 152.56.13.51 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, but we then have to be told what that content is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::So we can thoroughly discuss it and media comment on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, as just because they says its defamation does not make it so. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agreed, but the court seems to say that if ANI says it is, then it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::But they still have to tell US what it is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Also, is this judgment about what was, what is or what will be? Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oh well. Time to drop India, maybe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hahahahaha, now get to work and remove the defamatory content. 152.56.13.51 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Talk to the Wikimedia Foundation about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Here are some thoughts that occur to me.

:* What has been issued is an interim order even though I have seen some news reports claiming it to be a "judgement". An interim order is issued to limit the damage while the case is ongoing. But since the editors that ANI wanted to sue never joined the case, and WMF takes the position of being an "intermediary", it is likely that the real case will never be argued.

:* For the interim order, the judge read the sources himself and made up his own mind whether the content was an accurate summary. His claim that the sources appeared to be "editorials or opinion columns" is wrong. They are certainly not, according to our policies. But I am not sure how and when this point will be raised, if at all.

:* Since ANI has been given the opportunity to challenge our content by "email", the dispute is likely to go on and on forever and maybe it will go to the court repeatedly as well. So this ain't over yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes future and past

"Pass an order against the Defendants, restraining them

from posting, publishing, uploading, writing, speaking,

distributing and/ or republishing any false, misleading

and defamatory content against the Plaintiff on any

CS(OS) 524/2024 Page 2 of 61

platform, including the Platform maintained by

Defendant No. 1;".

But it does not seem to say "in the opinion of" but rather "is". Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:No, its not quite like that. Whats happening now is that ANI can directly write to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), and in most cases, WMF is taking action directly by themself. I heard they even moderated and locked some pages related to ANI-WMF legal case as per court order – which they never really done before.

:It’s a new thing – a role WMF never really took before, but now it looks like they are getting more involved. If this keeps happening, it might totaly change how Wikimedia works, especially in terms of legal stuff and page control. 14.139.114.222 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like the Wikimedia Foundation needs to officially block India from access and pull out of the country. Unfortunate, but if India is going to be going this anti-free speech route to authoritarianism, then there's no choice. Cutting them off so the rest of us can enjoy democracy seems like the only choice. Silverseren^C 04:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Though it [https://www.reuters.com/world/india/wikipedia-operator-appeals-indian-courts-order-remove-content-sources-say-2025-04-07/ looks like] there is a still an appeal route that the Foundation is pursuing as of yesterday, with no date for the larger judicial review set as of yet. Silverseren^C 04:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's a pretty intense take, but it's worth rememberring that but freedom of speech goes both ways. It means allowing space for all sides—even when the conversation gets uncomfrtable or challenges dominant views. If we start cutting off entire nations just because of disagreements, we risk turning open platforms into echo chambers. Wikimedia’s strenght lies in being a neutral ground, not taking sides but enbling access to knowledge for evryone. Rather than pulling out, it's more powerful to stay engaged, uphold core principles, and let the platform be a space where ideas can be debated, not silenced. 14.139.114.222 (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If Asian News International wants to participate in the development of this article, they are free to do so by having their representative create a Wikipedia account and submit edit requests on this talk page, while complying with the paid editing policy and conflict of interest guideline. The plain and simple conflict of interest guide provides useful advice on how to do this. Content on Wikipedia is determined by the consensus of the Wikipedia community. By attempting to override the Wikipedia community through legal action, Asian News International is working toward preventing Wikipedia from being {{xt|"a space where ideas can be debated, not silenced"}}. As stated in our community policy section {{slink|WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech}}, {{xt|"Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia."}} — Newslinger talk 04:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::IMO, consider for example another intermediary Facebook. If any affected party has trouble with some content, they approch the intermediary directly and request the removal of the defamatory content, and they dont approch the user who posted the "defamatory content" directly or be in an argument with them . In same way considering the definition of intermeduiary , ANI didn't require arguing with editors or submit edit requests on this talk page (as their are already questions on the community for being [https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/wikipedia-ani-delhi-high-court-intermediary-challenge-court-decision-merits "opinionated" and "non-neutral"]) . And I think they are primarily concerned about the alleged defamatory content rather than thedevelopment of this article . 14.139.114.222 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::My comment was in response to your argument that {{xt|"freedom of speech goes both ways"}}. Asian News International has never been prevented from expressing its point of view on Wikipedia, as they are free to participate in the development of this article by joining the Wikipedia community. In contrast, using legal actions to suppress the speech of the Wikipedia community is the "silencing" that you are referring to. Per the Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles, the Wikimedia Foundation has stated, {{xt|"Except where required by applicable law, we do not remove information from the Wikimedia projects to satisfy private or government interests. We will never facilitate, enable or condone censorship of the Wikimedia projects."}} — Newslinger talk 06:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC) {{small|Fix grammar — Newslinger talk 06:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::ANI wants different things from what the en-WP community wants, this is clear. How that will resolve itself, we'll see. But like Newslinger says, if they want to participate on this talkpage per WP:PAG, they can. Afaict, they never have. Other WP:COI-people/orgs have done so in the past, with some success. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Newslinger ..... as already pointed above Court already raised concerns about integrity of wikipedia community. So, ANI might not choosen to engage directly here (god knows!!!). They took neutral, legal route instead.

::::::Going to court legal actions isn’t about silencing someone. Its a right. Thats why they are called 'Legal' Legal action give fair chance to all sides, including the community and the affected party as well . Thats why its legal—its due process. 14.139.114.222 (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Legal actions can be used to silence other parties and to restrict speech. See: Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Your [https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/wikipedia-ani-delhi-high-court-intermediary-challenge-court-decision-merits source] does not state that the court has accused the Wikipedia {{!xt|"community for being 'opinionated' and 'non-neutral'"}}; the source states that the court has described the {{xt|"page"}} (i.e. the article Asian News International) in that way. As I mentioned in the above talk page discussion #Status of current article content, the most recent version of the article examined by the court in the judgment is 10 months old and differs significantly from the current version. If Asian News International objects to the current version of the article, they are welcome to explain their objections on this talk page. — Newslinger talk 07:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::As posted above I am not sure, maybe the appropriate version would have been communicated to WMF OR WMF takes action sou-motu from their side and might not involve editors. Anything could be possible. 14.139.114.222 (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::For a specific definition of "the appropriate version", sure, maybe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::"the appropriate version", it means a version to which the WMF and ANI agreed upon. Everyside happy. 14.139.114.222 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Actually, "WMF happy" does not necessarily mean "Wikipedians happy". But whose appropriate version may or may not have been communicated to whom is not very useful speculation. We'll find out or we won't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Reading that decision, it only mentions that ANI is allowed to request / demand removal of defamatory text, not changing or adding text. They might use a threat of that to force some negotiation with WMF on the end result. If WMF is forced to censor this article, there will absolutely be more India related articles that will be riding ANI's coat tails (Republic World) for the same rights. The court ruling is basically allowing the subject alone to determine defamation and force removal. At that point, we either put a REALLY LARGE tag at the top saying this article is utter junk, or we replace the article with a very minimal stub - Asian News International is an Indian news agency founding in XYZ. The end. And then lock the article as an office action.

::::::::::::Wikipedia cannot allow the forced censoring of information that a rigorous discussion determined the material was adequately sourced, especially with it being controversial, NPOV in tone and weight and attributed to the sources. As that starts, it will not stop and we become mouthpieces for the article subjects presenting a biased tone purely in favor of the subject. Modi would love to see some things purged from his article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I agree. And that's why I think that if ANI demands the removal of another article, Wikipedia should seriously consider simply disobeying the court's decision, and if it is blocked in India.... well, WP is already blocked in several countries, India is not something special. The Seal F1 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

: Maybe Wikipedia just need to leave India, no? Apparently, there is not much difference in freedom of speech between China and India. Also remember that Russian courts have fined Wikipedia about 10 times, but WP (fortunately) has not decided to delete articles in both English and Russian Wikipedia. At this rate, India may try to remove all content from WP. — The Seal F1 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Noting that discussions that aren't obviously about how to move forward with this article might fit better at Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

We do really need to see what WMF tells us (or does themselves) to take down. And if we can reword it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:"tell us " did they told you in earlier page lock? You and I are just user , don't consider yourself privileged. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::As an intermediary they can't change the content of the article , but they can lock the page and make it invisible for any body as they have done previously as per court order for WMF ANI legal case. In this case what the best WMF can do is that they can lock the page to prevent any further edits and make it invisible. In literal sense , if ANI chooses they wish to take down the article. And in my best wild guess , this is what ANI desires. Let's see what happens , anything could be possible. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Wrong, with WP:Office actions they can change article content if they think they should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Grabarage , that will make them publishr 152.59.63.251 (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::"Office actions are described by the Foundation as "official changes to or removals of content on the Wikimedia projects, or ..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Slatersteven, you and I are just user same as any other user of any other intermediary like Facebook and whatsapp university 152.59.63.251 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Here as the definition given by you for office action contradicts with the Indian IT laws. WMF pleaded intermediary status in front of Indian courts . As per the definition of intermediary in IT act, they facilitate the flow of info only, they can't change the content of the info. The best they can do is that they can remove the content . 152.59.63.251 (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If they are changing the content , it means they have to publish it and this make them publisher. Which they have avoided in Indian court. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Courts will do what they'll do. So will WMF. And Wikipedians.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Which is why WMF may not be able to step in, as its a lot more complicated, so WE need to take a wait and see approach, but article deletion is one option, and them locking,. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am Lane and I write the for Signpost, which is the Wikipedia community's newspaper. I previously covered the Asian News International story in the November 2024 issue. More coverage came this week in the story, "Indian judges demand removal of content critical of Asian News International", and a month ago there was the story "Progress in Indian courts."

Sometimes there is a misunderstanding that the Wikimedia Foundation tells Wikipedia editors what to do, or has a way to circumvent the editorial process of Wikipedia community members. There is sometimes also a misunderstanding that some Wikipedia editors have an inside track on information from the Wikimedia Foundation, or that sometimes the Wikimedia Foundation steps in and makes requests of Wikipedia community members.

As a journalist for The Signpost, I would like to share that I do not have inside information from the WMF, and that the WMF does not intervene in our journalism, and in all the private interviews that we have done for many years, I also have never heard of the Wikimedia Foundation intervening in any community affairs. In response to legal issues in the past, sometimes the Wikimedia Foundation has communicated the wishes from someone's complaint to Wikipedia editors, but I am unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation ever requesting edits. The most that I have seen the Wikimedia Foundation request is for Wikipedia editors to take care in editing, and to have discussions to confirm that the text of an article matches Wikipedia's editorial process for fact-checking and neutrality.

There is speculation above about whether this court ruling means the WMF will intervene in Wikipedia's editorial process. If anyone observes this for this case, can someone please inform the Signpost? You can publicly post information to the newsroom, which is how most people contact the newspaper for routine things. I am easy to find online if you want to message me privately. You can also message any of the other editors.

My expectation based on all precedent is that the WMF will not intervene in the editorial process here. This is an unusual and different court case of a sort which has never happened before, and if the WMF were to intervene, then I anticipate that this would be an extraordinary action and come with them making a public statement. I am posting here because I want to re-affirm as common knowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation does not intervene in the Wikipedia community's editorial process. There are no Wikipedia editors employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. I do not know any Wikipedia editors who have a working relationship with any Wikimedia Foundation staff, except in impersonal and non-collaborative ways. The Signpost is not collaborating with the Wikimedia Foundation to produce journalism. Anyone here who wants to contribute to The Signpost is invited to do so by making a submission. Please alert The Signpost if you see something that the newspaper should cover. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for your insights, and I or someone else from here will surely keep you posted if anything happens. GrabUp - Talk 15:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Bluerasberry}}, There is at least one case I'm aware of where OFFICE was invoked and the Wikimedia liaison then tried to introduce their version of the article and strongly control what we were allowed to say in the article (likely due to a lawsuit or DMCA filing, though that was never confirmed by the Foundation staff). Up until multiple editors, including myself, made a big issue about it and they finally backed off. That would be the Choose Your Own Adventure article from back in 2011, where you can still see all the back and forth on the talk page. Silverseren^C 21:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Silver seren}}, thanks for sharing, I had no idea. It seems like the Wikimedia Foundation prohibited the Wikimedia community from choosing their own adventure in that case. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Now that is a fascinating history lesson... Choose Your Own Adventure indeed... So after spending a large deal of time reading through that, what was the office action about? {{Ping|Philippe (WMF)|FloNight|Christine (WMF)}} are asked directly to explain the concern at least a dozen times and repeatedly refuse to do so. Even after its over I'm not seeing an explanation. Maybe this would make a good Signpost article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, it was never directly stated, but we had some strong assumptions. Based on statements by Foundation staff that included {{tq|some media stories give an incomplete telling of the history of the book series}} and {{tq|A simplistic and romanticized story about the creation of the book series was told during its early years in the media}}, we presumed that either Packard or Montgomery had threatened a lawsuit or some other action because of our article favoring one or the other of the two of them in regards to the history of how the book series was thought up and created. I said as much here and was immediately chastised by FloNight for "speculation". Despite, you know, no alternative explanation ever being given. Silverseren^C 22:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah I noticed that... Spent a few minutes looking for the general statement referenced in Flonight's comment "I'll make a more general statement as to the reason for this office protection in a few minutes." but it looks like a few minutes turned into over a decade? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Interesting. I had never heard of that strange interference by the WMF. I dug through the history of Choose Your Own Adventure (CYOA) a bit and wrote up my findings in Talk:Choose Your Own Adventure#Potential pre-history of that 2011 office action. It would be great if the Signpost could investigate what went on behind the scenes. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

To change the lead from "Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company have alleged that ANI…" to "Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company have criticised ANI for…".

The last discussion held dates back to September. So, is there any reason as to why we're still sticking with the "alleged" wording despite the above consensus and WP:WIKIVOICE?. Am I missing something? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 18:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:No, as that implies the allegation is true, the couts have said we canot imply that. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::And since when did we start deciding how an article should be based on dictatorial courts? I couldn't care less about a kangaroo court. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 11:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You may not, I do consider that we shoudl try to not get WMF a fine for no good reason. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::What are you talking about? We do not go by that logic here, really. It doesn't matter what i think, it doesn't matter what you think of this either. What truly matters is what the reliable sources say about it. An overwhelming amount of reliable sources support the statements with zero reliable sources present to contest them. You are literally going against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia here. Wikipedia does not censor content, see WP:NOTCENSORED: {{small|{{tq|Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.}}}}. Full stop. Also, see WP:VOICE:

:::# {{small|{{tq|A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.}}}}／

:::# {{small|{{tq|Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.}}}}／

:::# {{small|{{tq|A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.}}}}／

::::So, have any reliable sources disputed the claims made by present sources? No. As i previously said, absence of evidence does not mean you editorialise and undervalue the sources' wording.
Going forward, I won't be heeding any more reverts based on reasonings such as "Oh no, but the Delhi High Court would be upset over this" and will be reporting it at the admins' noticeboard instead. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 18:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is still not a proven allegation; it is only an allegation, and I would be arguing for that even if the scouts had not stuck their oar in. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Re: {{xt|Going forward, I won't be heeding any more reverts}}, if by this you mean you will edit war to your preferred wording, I advise against it. This is a collaborative process. Valereee (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not really. @{{u|Valereee}}, you have previously too put words into my mouth and assumed something similar at my talk page, and i explained it back then as well. I would yet again request you read and practice good faith. If you read till the end of the sentence, you will see that i wrote {{tq|Going forward, I won't be heeding any more reverts based on reasonings such as "Oh no, but the Delhi High Court would be upset over this" and will be reporting it at the admins' noticeboard instead.}}. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+instead instead [ɪnˈstɛd]　'adverb'—as a substitute or alternative to; in place of. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 16:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It was the 'not heeding reverts' I was talking about. It could be interpreted as saying you'll re-revert and not respond to but instead report. Sorry for the lack of clarity. For the record, snark is seldom helpful in a collaborative environment. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am aware of the three-revert rule. It could maybe be interpreted as you say, but since you appear to be in doubt, it would just be better to tilt on the no side; that's all there is to it. Sorry if you're put off by the definition i inserted. It was not meant to be snark. !Perhaps one could treat it as me being oblivious to you being familiar with the language, just like how you keep being oblivious to me being familiar with the project and the rules. For the record, the bot-like, template-ish warning messages, here or on the talk page, are really not helpful, especially when they are based purely on your assumptions, which are contradictory to my edits, in a collaborative environment.

::::::::My comment was in response to your comment, not aimed at you, and was just expanding on what was previously said. You're a long-time user and an admin at that, so you'd already understand this, but i would still request you not hold any grudges. Again, my sincerest apologies. Thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 20:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Can we not call the Delhi High Court a kangaroo court? We may disagree with them, but that doesn't make them a kangaroo court. @Lunar-akaunto, you say you're seeing "above consensus" for using criticized instead of alleged? Can you point us at that, sorry, long discussion here and it's hard to keep up. Valereee (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't really know. Besides, I didn't say that just because of the current lawsuit. In my opinion, a normal functioning court wouldn't, or rather, shouldn't really care about what i say about them. I am in no position to sway public opinion or such either. What i said is based on what i could infer from the media reports of the Indian judiciary as a whole, which includes the Delhi High Court. I understand the need of courts for a functionable society, and i do respect them, but sometimes you just have to say what it is for what it is—especially when a significant amount of judiciary, according to media reports, look compromised—fascists masquerading as courts. [https://theprint.in/opinion/pov/india-has-travelled-from-hang-the-rapists-to-garland-the-rapists-2012-rape-a-distant-memory/1177879 1], [https://caravanmagazine.in/law/adhivakta-parishad-rss-hold-judicial-system 2], [https://thewire.in/law/fire-smoke-and-vanishing-cash-at-a-judges-house-what-we-know-what-we-dont-know 3], [https://thewire.in/news/sitting-allahabad-high-court-judge-vhp-event-ucc 4], [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-modi-made-islamophobic-remarks-in-110-campaign-speeches-human-rights-watch/article68524165.ece 5], [https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/article29618205.ece 6], [https://thewire.in/government/bsnl-failed-to-bill-reliance-jio-for-sharing-infra-since-2014-govt-lost-rs-1757-crore-report 7], [https://www.dw.com/en/india-history-books-rewritten-by-government/a-65385029 8] {{sup|It wouldn't really be possible for me to link everything here, but i would trust you to be capable enough to take it from here.}} Now let's just keep our talk limited to ANI—respecting the talk page guidelines—and not dig too much into my passing remark.

::::I have already linked the previous discussion above. To clarify, it was the discussion you started, and it was for the attribution and not specifically for this, but it did eventually come to it. There was no clear-cut conclusion to it, but every time it was discussed, including briefly at later times, as far as i can see, the majority of the reasonable responses were in favour; that too, I'd say heavily so. I can quote them all if you'd like. However, if to you, the previously held discussions do not look oh so organised or conclusive, we can—and in fact, I recommend to—just discuss it here.

::::Lastly, if you ask me, your motivations for the article, albeit in good faith, to me, look like an absurdly overcautious ship?—now, when i say this, what i mean is we can, to a certain extent, make the article easier to get by for a layman, but we can't be spoonfeeding everything. We're supposed to be bold and just write what the sources say without a second thought for dictatorial regimes. Since the last discussions were held and to this date, there are 0 reliable sources present to contest the claims made by currently present sources. I believe adding terminology such as "accused", "alleged", and so on, purely falls into the category of original search because, again, technically, there are 0 reliable sources to contest them, so just where exactly are we adding it from? Especially, on the contrary—when the currently used sources have been blunt and extensively thorough in their approach—and have not used the said terminology. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 17:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I couldn't care less about what the Delhi court thinks, but at the same time, we are supposed to be writing a neutral encyclopedia article with an impartial, disinterested tone as mandated by WP:NPOV, not polemics against the decline of Indian media freedom, or bias in the Indian media, however noble those causes may be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::What i said above about the court is barely 25% of the entire thing i wrote. @HemiaucheniaTheGreat, initially, i only wrote a total of, like what? 7 words? as a passing remark while keeping my response strictly limited to the article—it was only after @Valereee's response that i wrote further; she asked, and i couldn't resist providing a short explanation.

::::::Polemics? Noble cause? Really now? I haven't said that. If you'd read further, you'd see i clearly expressed my desire to not discuss it further and especially here on the talk page so as to respect the talk page guidelines. Perhaps you should strive to keep your focus on the last 2 paragraphs i wrote. Thank you? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 09:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

wp:editwar and WP:ONUS are clear, the person who wishes to make a change needs to get wp:consensus for it, if they are reverted. If they then just revert, the revert constitutes is edit warring. wp:3rr is not an upper limit or right; it is merely a bright line. You can (in fact) be edit warring if you do not breach it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Simply wikilinking the above policies does not make your argument hold any water. The onus was on me to explain my edits, which i did, both while and after making the said edit. Initially, hopeful, i did so in the edit summaries while editing per WP:CON: {{small|{{tq|Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.}}}} It didn't work, and hence this discussion, which to me feels more like a WP:DISCFAIL. You're free to make the changes you deem to be correct, but you must understand that discussions are necessary. Neither have i edit warred, nor do i plan to, and as i have previously said, I won't be reverting or explaining all this to you again. Since you don't seem to discussing the issue either, I'll just have to take this to a relevant noticeboard instead.

:Again, do you have any other argument to make other than how this article should be according to the court? or do you have any reliable sources that rebut the contemporary sources? Thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 17:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::No it is down to you to get wp:consensus that your change needs to be made. And yes, we have explained our objections. wp:npov comes into this, we have to be neutral and cmments about kangaroo courts do not convince me this is nothing other than wp:rightgreatwrongs editing, which is a violation of wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It was a passing remark to your response. Mind you, this is NOT an article—this is just a talk page. At that, this talk page itself too is NOT about the court but about ANI. So i just can't make sense of what you're trying to say. What does my remark about the court have anything to do with ANI and its propaganda for the state? Please keep it legible. I smell ad hominem.

:::Back to the discussion, What you are saying is we should let the article wording be such that it implies that the said wording in the article is not true as directed by the court. What i am saying is we should be phrasing it per the reliable sources. To quote wp:rightgreatwrongs: {{tq|Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do.}} Neutral as in the sense you write what the sources say without editorialising or censoring. And as i previously said, Since the last discussions were held and to this date, there are 0 reliable sources present to contest the claims made by currently present sources. I believe adding terminology such as "accused", "alleged", and so on, purely falls into the category of original research because, again, technically, there are 0 reliable sources to contest them, so just where exactly are we adding it from? Especially, on the contrary—when the currently used sources have been blunt and extensively thorough in their approach—and have not used the said terminology.

:::{{od|-2}} Stick to the discussion, please. Do you have any other argument to make other than how this article should be according to the court? Or do you have any reliable sources that rebut the contemporary sources? Thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 19:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{disdis|14.139.114.222|spi=DavidWood11}}

There were three versions of this story, Wikipedia, and two sources.

1. Hindustani Times: {{Blockquote|I will impose contempt... It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia... Earlier also you people have taken this argument. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India,” the judge said...}} "The judge" is, on plain reading, Navin Chalwa.
2. Deccan Herald: {{Blockquote|If you don't like India, please don't work in India … We will ask government to block Wikipedia in India.}}
3. Wikipedia (up to now): {{Blockquote|If you don't like India, please don't work in India ... We will ask government to block your site".}}

I have, for the moment, used the Deccan Herald version, as it is at least in a reference. No prejudice against changing to part of HT, or better finding the court transcript.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC).

:these things dont go on official court records as they are just passing comments by Judges, which further amplified by the media and help setting the dominating narrative. 14.139.114.222 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{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)

[https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/PMS/judgement/09-04-2025/&name=PMS08042025FAOOS412025_110145.pdf Link]: I am pasting this here in case the community want to consult the order and identify what does the Court want. Earlier, I tried to interpret the single-bench order but failed; the Court accused us to be misrepresenting the cited sources but without any proofs! Upd Edit (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Select bits:

:{{talkquote|The finding of the ld. Single Judge is that there is content on the Wikipedia platform pertaining to ANI, which could be considered defamatory. Further, the sources which are cited on the ANI page of the Appellant platform do not match with the references provided for the same. The content of the Wikipedia page relating to ANI and the sources provided for the same are different. It is under these circumstances that the ld. Single Judge has granted interim injunction vide the impugned order ... (p. 11)

A perusal of the content, during the course of hearing, on the ANI page of Wikipedia shows that there are various portions of the content which make allegations, allusions and accusations of ANI being a `propaganda tool’ and a `vast network of fake news websites’. There is an entire section on `Bias and propoganda’ and allegations of misreporting by ANI have been made. Such allegations can have far-reaching and adverse impact on any news agency. The page appears to be spreading a one-sided view without maintaining Neutrality – as any Encyclopaedia should ... (p. 19-20)

}} Upd Edit (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::While the [https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/SMP/judgement/03-04-2025/&name=SMP02042025S5242024_212323.pdf 2 April judgment] did not appear to evaluate any version of the article newer than Special:Permalink/1225975321 (timestamped 21:10, 27 May 2024; see #Status of current article content for details), this new [https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/PMS/judgement/09-04-2025/&name=PMS08042025FAOOS412025_110145.pdf 8 April decision] appears to be in reference to a more recent version of the article. This is clear because of the statement {{xt|"There is an entire section on 'Bias and propoganda'}} {{sic}} {{xt|..."}} (page 21), which only applies to article versions after Special:Diff/1266131255 (06:48, 30 December 2024), my edit that changed the {{!xt|"Propaganda"}} subheading to {{xt|"Bias and propaganda"}}.

::The most obvious way to address the court's claim that {{xt|"The content of the Wikipedia page relating to ANI and the sources provided for the same are different"}} is by adding quotes of the source material into the article, such as by:

::# Using quotes of the source text alongside in-text attribution in the article body

::# Including quotes of the source text in the {{code|quote}} parameter of citation templates such as {{tl|Cite web}}

::# Including quotes of the source text in explanatory notes

::If all the statements in the article body are fully verifiable to quotes on the page that are displayed using methods 1{{ndash}}3, no reasonable person would be able to claim that the article text contains statements that simultaneously {{!xt|"are not verbatim reproduction of such}} [sources]{{!xt|"}} and {{!xt|"are written in such a way which is totally contradictory to the intent with which these}} [sources] {{!xt|were written"}} (page 2). — Newslinger talk 01:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I was never happy with that section title, but I was always reverted if I changed it. Some people like to watch the world burn I suppose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::As section headings can be interpreted as claims in Wikipedia's voice, I agree that {{xt|"Relationship with the Indian government and allegations of bias"}} (current heading as of Special:Diff/1285328780) is preferable to {{!xt|"Bias and propaganda"}} for the article's current state. — Newslinger talk 08:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, lets not put it in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Some people like to watch the world burn I suppose.}}…and i suppose you're referring to me?{{sup|1, 2}} Don't be ridiculous, HemiaucheniaTheGreat, if you were so agitated by it, you should have just posted your reasonings in the discussion i started. So, did ya?

::::Just for the record, I agree that the current heading is more preferable now; the article has changed since then, though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1257149258#Propaganda not very significantly], but it has. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 17:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree, we need to use attributed quotes for anything that could be argued to be opinion. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{talkquote|The apex court today chose to set aside the High Court orders in light of the fact that they were too broadly worded and did not specify which of the statements about ANI should be removed.

"Such a broad interim relief is not capable of being specifically implemented. The reason is that there is no clarity on the issue on who will decide whether the contents are false, misleading and defamatory," it said.

The Bench observed that an injunction should be granted in such a manner that it is capable of being implemented.Ritwik Choudhury, [https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/relief-wikipedia-supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-high-court-order-take-down-defamatory-edits-against-ani Relief for Wikipedia as Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court order to take down defamatory edits against ANI], Bar and Bench, 17 April 2025.}}

Not that we didn't notice these problems ourselves! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Nice that it was done quickly. So now back to the original court and it all starts again. Good for all the lawyers with the fees they are racking up with this nonsense. Ravensfire (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Lol, I guess the lawyer fees are over $500 per hearing for both sides, and the litigation fees are separate. One more thing to note: ANI has claimed ₹2 Cr ($235k), and in India, to file a defamation case, you need to deposit a certain percentage of the claimed amount with the court before the case can proceed. This percentage varies across High Courts, but in this case, the Delhi High Court requires around 1–3%, which comes to approximately ₹200k–₹600k ($2.3k–$7k), in addition to other court and lawyer fees, and if they loose the case, they also loose the deposit. GrabUp - Talk 19:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What has this to do with us? Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:The Supreme Court of India is not nonsense. GrabUp - Talk 18:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::This isn’t reflected in the article’s litigation section. 47.230.71.135 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm thinking the entire paragraph on this interim order (starting with "On 2 April") should be removed. We're not supposed to be doing a play-by-play, especially on the ANI article. When the lawsuit article is brought back, there would make sense. Ravensfire (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Though it does sound like the Supreme Court has no intention of deciding that this entire case is nonsense. They just want the lower court to make a body or group (or just decide that ANI is in charge) to control the articles in question. So it doesn't sound like anything's different from the prior noted necessity of cutting India off entirely if they go this route. Silverseren^C 00:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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. Silverseren^C 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. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 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)

{{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}}