Talk:Asian News International/Archive 2#Commentary

{{Discussion top|reason=Given increasing concern among editors of the English Wikipedia, an open letter has been published and is taking signatures. No need for further discussion here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)}}

Discussions on Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) have revealed that WMF intends to reveal the identity of an Indian editor to a Dehli Court on 8 November. There seems to be support for a community response to dissuade WNF from taking such action but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the procedures involved. It has been suggested a letter should be drafted to WMF expressing our concerns. I could draft such a letter but need advice on how to proceed further.--Ipigott (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:The future of the community appears very bleak if the news that WMF is giving up the personal information of Wikipedia editors and disclosing their identities is accurate, as reported in various media. This creates the impression that the editors and the larger community are in charge of the edits, so I will suggest the following community response.

:* Every Wikipedia article must be owned by an administrator, who will also handle any disputes or legal ramifications arising from the article.

:* The editing community need not have to be anonymous; Wikipedia editors must be identified. This will stop undesired edits, edit Wars & sock puppetry.

: Djano Chained (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:: You're joking, right? Have you no idea what the internet is like? Look up doxing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I didn't get what you want to say Vajjean Djano Chained (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Given increasing concern among editors of the English Wikipedia, an open letter has been published and is taking signatures.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

[https://www.aninews.in/news/world/others/murder-of-free-press-says-the-australia-today-founder-after-trudeau-govt-blocks-outlet-in-canada20241108203651/ ANI has spread the news] that Canada's Trudeau government "blocked" the "social media handles and page" of The Australia Today (actually run by overseas Indians) after it covered a press conference featuring Indian minister S Jaishankar. Indian media has been talking non-stop about this alleged censorship in light of tensions over the Nijjar case.

However, the 'ban' seems to be from Meta not the Trudeau government (Online News Act). Has any independent media house which doesn't syndicate from ANI reported on ANI's reporting? 2607:FEA8:5943:3700:6DA1:857D:BBBC:6FDB (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:Correct. [https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/australia-today-says-will-continue-to-advocate-for-open-media/article68844147.ece The Hindu] reported something similar but shortly took it down afterwards for factual inaccuracy. Debunked rightly by [https://thewire.in/diplomacy/australia-today-social-media-block-canada-meta-news-companies The Wire] and [https://www.boomlive.in/fact-check/politics/mea-sjaishankar-canada-india-australia-today-blocked-fake-news-fact-check-26941 BOOM Live]. Even day they call out Wikipedia for fake news (which is NOT fake news), and odd day rampantly do the same. Godi media for a reason, huh. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Admin help|answered=yes}}

Since this article is the subject of an active court case in India, with the Delhi High Court having asked the WMF to identify editors who have edited it, there should be an edit notice warning editors. Something like: "Warning: This article is the subject of a current court case in India. If you edit it, your edit may become part of legal action, including a request for your IP to be revealed to the court." Since the article is under CTOP, I believe the edit notice should be imposed by an administrator. (Also, I don't think I have the technical competence required to add it.)

--Yngvadottir (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:I wonder if that's something that the WMF should decide. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm able to create the edit notice (admins and template editors can), but I'd like more feedback on whether we should have one and what it should contain. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

::I did consider adding:

::"Image:Stop hand nuvola.svgYou may be sued if you edit this page. See Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation."

::{{clear}} to Template:Editnotices/Page/Asian News International earlier.--Launchballer 23:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

::: Looks good to me! Short and precise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Added.--Launchballer 09:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{reply|Firefangledfeathers}} I suggest something along the lines that Yngvadottir has proposed. It's factual and neutral; the current one may well be "short and precise", but it's highly inflammatory, something the WMF obviously wants to avoid. I mean, I know WMF–community relations can sometimes be frosty (verging on Arctic), but are we deliberately going out of our way to poke the bear?{{pb}}For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty inappropriate use of advanced tools to create such a template despite calls for a consensus to be found first, being our established approach. The case has been ongoing for ~five months, a few more hours/days will make little difference. SerialNumber54129 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like there's broad agreement on the existence of an edit notice but no consensus yet on what to include. SN54129 opposes the present version, which LB and K3 support. {{u|Yngvadottir}}, thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That edit notice is highly inappropriate. It implies that whoever wrote it is threatening to sue any editor who edits the article. Take it down immediately and wait for a consensus version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense to me, there isn't anything special about this page... Edits to any article on wikipedia can result in that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The chilling effect of this SLAPP lawsuit has begun :( –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:I agree that {{U|Launchballer}}'s wording is provocative. I don't think there should be a link to the protest letter. Maybe to the section within the article? I believe the mention of a current case makes for enough of a warning. But I do think there is some urgency; the chilling effect is unfortunately real because of the WMF's response. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

::I've blanked the editnotice.--Launchballer 21:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

{{archive top|result=This isn't difficult. Please submit an edit-protected request.}}

Why is this article blue locked? Please remove this lock. Peluddin mohammad (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:I want to add more information to this page please unlock. Peluddin mohammad (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::Nope. You can use {{tl|Edit protected}} and request changes to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Do I need a request to do that? I thought it is free and open to all ! Peluddin mohammad (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Yes. The article was subjected to what the community deemed as disruptive editing. It will remain as such until the situation changes. – robertsky (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Do community have alternatives to handle the disruptions rather than locking the page itself? Peluddin mohammad (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Not as an alternative, no but there are other courses of action, a page lock is usually enacted when those other solutions have failed. Why not just tel us what you want to add? Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

{{ab}}

{{archive top|result=Already asked and answered above. Please do not submit duplicate requests. Black Kite (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}}

As I can see from the history of the revisions, this article is blue-locked indefinitely. A general perception would indicate that an indefinite lock on the article is not needed as it bars "anyone" from editing the page. Peluddin mohammad (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:You were already told why its locked and how to edit the page which is locked- By making a section on this talk page and suggesting additions or deletion backed by good WP:RS reference. Again the lock is exactly to bar 'anyone below' Extended confirmed level users from editing.

:

{{ab}}

Should ANI be described as acting as a "mouthpiece" of the Indian government (regardless as to whether this description is attributed or not)? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, too strong a word, imo. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• While I would personally say they are a mouthpiece, it's too colorful a negative description to use, short of our sources using it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Rather find something more neutral, or quote. Valereee (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes it is a mouthpiece and should be mentioned as such. Articles across Wikipedia have used this word for various outlets. I don't see any sincere objection. Dympies (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• All editors agree they are a "mouthpiece" but some are saying we need to find a better word. Which one is it? First suggest it then only we can move forward. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• :I don't think all editors necessarily are saying this, and it really doesn't matter what editors are saying. What matters is what sources are saying. Maybe you were just shorthanding this, but let's use well-chosen language here right now. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:"Propaganda tool", which was in place too before being changed here? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not against use, but if used, "mouthpiece" should be attributed. Cortador (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Mouthpiece" is not correct, which would imply that everything that ANI puts out is at the behest of the government. Some of what ANI did, e.g., producing programmes for the government television channel in Kashmir, is of this kind. But in general, it is not. The reality is that ANI voluntarily aligns itself to peddle the government point of view, probably selectively, in order to curry favours with the government and enlarge its business. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Please use this section to discuss ideas for alternatives. Personally I have no strong opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• See this. "propaganda tool", it is then. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 20:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  This also matches with that of the source; The Caravan mentions it as "a formidable tool in the hands of the ruling party". {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 21:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Priopaganda tool" is exactly correct. The full wording was "accused of having served as a propaganda tool of incumbent governments". I am unhappy that we are being forced to defend the WP:STATUSQUO, whereas the normal protocol is to put the WP:ONUS on those wanting a change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Propaganda tool" seems like an accurate and verifiable description. I would support it. Nosferattus (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decide through preponderance of sources. How many of the sources we are using for this content are calling it a "propaganda tool"? If it's not being called that by multiple of the best sources, we shouldn't use that either. Valereee (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What's really at stake with the court case in India against Wikipedia:

https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/wmf-bjp-court-order-sell-out-principles

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

From the history section, 2011:

:[..]procured multiple units of LiveU, [..]

What is meant by that in the article? Google finds me a plethora of businesses who are named LiveU, LiveU TV, etc... These "units of LiveU" could probably mean some LiveU computer processors by the Teltec company, but unless some ten thousands of computers were purchased there (and for what end??), I see nothing significant with that procurement. Please elaborate. --Enyavar (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

{{archive top|This talkpage is to discuss improvements to the Asian News International article, not to act as a general forum for discussion about the ongoing lawsuit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}}

The article states: "On 28 October the Wikimedia Foundation complied with the court's request to disclose identifying information of online users involved in editing the ANI page". Sourced to https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html

In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-11-06/News and notes we have "On October 31, the Foundation legal team gave an update that "We have not shared any user data"."

Ping Bluerasberry, Bri, Soni, and Smallbones - hope someone can clarify/fix this in the mainspace (assuming The Signpost is not wrong, but it is not RS for Wikipedia, AFAIK...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:Not yet but Wikipedia's senior counsel has agreed to submit the details in a sealed cover, the article should be corrected to reflect this.. [https://www.medianama.com/2024/10/223-wikipedia-offers-reveal-user-identities-in-sealed-covers-report] - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::My mistake - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=1256522073 toning down] the language in the article, I did not (but should have) checked the ref for accuracy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=1256548098 This change] should more accurately reflect the [https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html ref]. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:::IMO we can remove that sentence until something actually happens on this point. Apparently the last court meeting was postponed due to a celebration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for ping. If anyone wants to volunteer to submit a piece to The Signpost interpreting this information, then draft an outline and post to the submission desk. There are multiple ways to read the available info, and if anyone wants to indulge in speculation and clearly label a submission as such, then I think lots of readers would enjoy seeing a list of all the things people imagine this could mean. I will not write such a piece, but if anyone makes an effort to start it, then I can help them find some of the wild completely baseless Internet theories on the subject. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have an explanation of what "sealed cover" actually means. There is no Wikipedia article about the concept. I can imagine what it might mean, but I want to know what it really means in the context of the law in India. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:Read

:*[https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sco-shorts-what-is-sealed-cover-jurisprudence/ SCO Shorts: Sealed Cover Jurisprudence] and

:*[https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/06/sealed-cover-public-interest-immunity-natural-justice-non-disclosure-of-material-fairer-alternative-open-justice-supreme-court-cji-chandrachud-hima-kohli-legal-updates-national-security-research-news/ 'Sealed Covers violate natural and open justice': The Why-What-How of 'Public Interest Immunity proceedings', the 'fairer' alternative suggested by Supreme Court] which compares it to UK's {{section link|Justice and Security Act 2013|Closed material procedures|nopage=y}}. Both achieve the same ends with different means.

:This is probably the rare instance where a non-government party to the suit, requested evidence to be presented in a sealed cover. Usually, it happens when the government is a party to a suit, and it doesn't want anyone, including the other party to see or challenge it. — hako9 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

::@Hako9 Its not like that. I will explain, what you contemplate in chronology:

::# ANI file defamation suit against WMF.

::# The court asked the intermidiary/publisher about the details of the editor who carried out the questionable edits.

::# The intermidiary/publisher agreed to provide the details of editors in a seled cover to the court. Here sealed cover means, the idenity of the editors will be revealed to the court and to the ANI(for cross questioning of the WP editor by ANI attorneys) only.

::# The WP editor will then be summoned in by the court to answer questions. In order to prove that ANI is a propaganda tool for the Indian government, the court will urge the wiki editor to provide evidence.

::Zubehamoreha (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:::The article does not say ANI is a propaganda tool for the government. The article says that sources have said so. Does Indian law not recognize that distinction? Because it is indisputably true that sources have said so. Valereee (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

::::@Valereee I guess the question is: what is the legal view on legality of repeating (alleged) slander? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::@Piotrus, and if it turns out that under Indian law we can't summarize defamatory content from sources without being able to show our own independent research proving that content is in fact true, what are even we doing in India? Valereee (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::In India retweets, of allegedly defamatory contents can also be defamatory. {{tq|what are even we doing in India?}} Exactly. — hako9 (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Also the exact content ANI finds defamatory is here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-11-06/In_focus#The_content_ANI_has_issues_with] - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::If India chooses an authoritarian path by banning Wikipedia, they would face greater losses by restricting their population's access to information than Wikipedia would. We should prioritise protecting our editors' privacy and their right to freedom of expression, without compromise. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Overall, I agree. If some Indian judges want to get "famous" for banning Wikipedia and exposing flows in their judicial and political system, why should we prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot and getting a footnote in the Book of Copyright and Censorship Infamy? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::idk karnataka judge who ruled against twitter in its case agaist GOI (a landmark case on new IT laws). So judges dont do it to get "Famous". as already said above retweet of a defamatory tweet is also defamatory. We will see what happens in the court. Apart from this idk how much qualified everyone here is to predict case outcomes. what many are saying might already be what WMF is likely to say in court in future, comments like this will only help ANI than WMF `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 03:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::@Valereee Hopefully this will be fixed in the architecture/technical level, through those new super anonymous accounts we are supposed to be getting, or some other solution such as dumping all IP logs every 24h from everything, or not recording them. Good times for socks are coming, I guess, but given the choice... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I am sure that point would be brought up when the actual trial begins. Right now, ANI is still trying to implead the supposed litigants, and the court is only looking at "prima facie" defamation. "Justice is blind", as we say in India, even though the blindfolds on the goddess of justice have been removed recently as a gimmick. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|Here sealed cover means, the idenity of the editors will be revealed to the court and to the ANI(for cross questioning of the WP editor by ANI attorneys)}} Incorrect. Judge can on his/her discretion, reveal contents of sealed cover to plaintiff's counsel. But it's not necessary. Judge may also hear defendant without presence of plaintiff/plaintiff's counsel and dismiss request for cross questioning. In Bhima Koregaon case, government gave documents in sealed cover to judge, and the defendant could never see it [https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/03/25/how-sealed-covers-in-court-became-the-norm-for-the-state]. An appeal by wmf was closed today. ANI and WMF mutually agreed that instead of ANI servicing summons to the editor, WMF will summon the editor themselves, which indicates wmf has not yet shared info of the editor to ANI's lawyers. — hako9 (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Jimmy's clarified that this is correct. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

{{od}}*The identity of the 3 Wikipedia administrators (not common editors) is known to ANI who have named them explicitly with their real-life identities and chosen them very carefully for this motion as they are so closely identified with WMF. Their verified email IDs and NDAs (2 of them are/were stewards/oversighters) are well known to WMF. Jimbo is being disingenuous, to put it mildly. DrMees (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC).

:@DrMees and where is your source for such disingenuous statement? If there isn't one, I suggest you striking out your comment here. – robertsky (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::I respectfully suggest you ask the admins concerned if they have been contacted by the Indian media to whom ANI has leaked their identities about 2 days back. I cannot post the source publicly as it would compromise the id of the admins. However, I can post a link to diffs of some of the edits which ANI has made a supplementary filing of, which in turn would identify their IRL ids. DrMees (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:::@DrMees without knowing your sources, there is no way to know which "admins concerned" you are referring to. There are hundreds of admins and some more functionaries here. – robertsky (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::::So you are asking me to disclose their IRL ids on a public channel which is almost certainly being monitored by ANI (and assorted bad actors). DrMees (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::For starters, your statement is an accusation that there is some intent to deceive the court in India, and possibly the community at large here as well. This is without proof or basis and is hard to assume good faith on. I am simply asking you for your sources, which is not published anywhere (yet?). There are some stuff that can be taken at face value, but this is not it. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::No, for starters you are asking me to flout WP:OUTING which is a core wiki principle I believe in. The information I have is in public domain in India and easily verifiable but I would be the last person to Streisand them by republishing it on Wikipedia of all places. The core issue is that ANI is going after Wikipedia admins (not ordinary editors) and WMF has stated to the court that these admins have no connection whatsoever to WMF. Ordinary editors have nothing to fear from Indian courts as their edits are moderated. Admins are a different category altogether as they have database access and special privileges granted by WMF. Clearly WMF is being disingenuous in the case of at least 2 of the admins identified by ANI where they were made stewards / oversighters/global renamers, and Chairmen of WMF Committees after WMF demanded their NDAs (all which is preserved on wikimedia.org servers and publicly accessible) as a part of the new process after 2011. DrMees (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:So you're either saying that WMF has been lying (unlikely based on how they've approached things) or you're saying ANI doxxed some folks. I'm aware of at least two non-admins involved and, for the record, admins are not required to sign NDAs (I haven't signed one). I'm really not buying this considering the transcripts of the proceedings are public. This feels like fear mongering. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:::The daily orders are in public domain. Not the filings which are also public but only accessible to Indians on application. Yes ANI has doxxed some more admins in the supplemental filings. They have clearly picked up some hints dropped by the judges to recalibrate their attack after WMF stated that Respondents 2 to 4 have no connection to WMF. DrMees (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I'm going to be blunt, call bull shit, tell you to log into your main account, and to stop spreading unsubstantiated crap. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Dont wave the admin stick. I haven't edited from any other Wikipedia account since 2015 and I have forgotten the login to it. You should really learn to identify friends from foes. BTW, You can learn from admin Phil Knight who has been around from when I was editing back in 2004.I suspect that is why he has been a steward, global renamer etc etc and why WMF has details of such trusted users like him. DrMees (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at :Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:whhat is this- "this decision may go down as the latest example of the submission of truth and justice to illegitimate power in an era of emboldened tyrants" chill a little. Your article represent India as some BJP authoritarian country which is 100% propaganda than truth. I live here and I wanted to be called as person living in free India where just like any other country rules and laws take their course and courts decide when there is mismatch in values with which my nation' constitution was enacted. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 11:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::I think the issue was the direct threats of direct action made. Also as this is not about India it is about Asian News International your hyperbole seems out of place. Remember we say very similar things about Fox News, RT and indeed every Chinese new agency. Asian News International is not being singled out. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::For all the hostile and aggressive "hot takes" I have seen launched at the reputation of FOX News, I don't think I have ever seen them or events around them referred to (directly or indirectly) in such a manner as "submission of truth and justice to illegitimate power in an era of emboldened tyrants".

:::I absolutely agree that statement is hyperbolic editorializing, but I do disagree that it is an issue that could reasonably seen as an attack on India as a whole. Criticism of any kind against any media organization or branch of government should not be taken as criticism of an entire people. TheRazgriz (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

To change the content sub-heading back to "Propaganda"? My reasoning is the same as before. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 08:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:"Propoganda" word is gone!!! But I don't think that this will make ANI any more relaxed. The Indian editor will simply become more troubled by your logic. Lunar, Hold back your reasoning for a while. Djano Chained (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC) {{small|WP:SOCKSTRIKE – robertsky (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}}

Reverting; removing "propaganda" undervalues the sources' wordings and is not in line with WP:NPOV{{efn|{{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.　　...Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.}}}} and WP:NOTCENSORED{{efn|{{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.}}}}. As i previously stated, and while i object to it, the other heading may be appropriate if the sub-heading in question essentially discussed anything other than the agency's propaganda. I first posted this after the last revert, hence reverting per above all, absence of objections, and WP:STATUSQUO. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 14:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

{{notelist talk}}

Does anyone have the link (or the title and date of) the Newslaundry investigation covered in Talk:Asian_News_International/Archive_1#The_Newslaundry_investigation? I want to expand the article based on it, but it's not clear from the context what the article actually is, and reverse searching quotes brought up nothing. Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:These links were posted on the talk page you linked:

:* https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/09/18/ani-news-european-experts-kashmir

:* https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/02/23/ani-played-key-role-based-reports-on-fake-sources-new-eu-group-report-on-indian-influence-networks

:* https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/04/08/anis-news-business-pr-contracts-with-cms-podcasts-and-a-quest-for-power

:Nakonana (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:: It's definitely not the first two. It's either the third one or a later piece, but I can't cite it until I am absolutely certain what article it is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I can confirm that the quotes from the talk page are in the above article from 2024-04-08. Nakonana (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:There's a video, too, and it was quite good. Valereee (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

::Here is it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc Valereee (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Newslaundry is rag. It could not be used as reliable source Dzień dobrry (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC) {{small|WP:SOCKSTRIKE – robertsky (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}}

::::I think you'll find most editors disagree with you on that, @Dzień dobrry. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::You are right, I might have different opinion.

:::::But at this point of time the agreement of counsel of ANI and the Judge is more important in this regard. Mr Sibal the counsel of WMF should work harder. Zubehamoreha (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC) {{small|WP:SOCKSTRIKE. – robertsky (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}}

::::::wdym by agreement of counsel of ANI and judge? thats clear slander I must say. Can above comment be deleted? @Hey man im josh `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 03:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete the subsection on Litigation against Press Trust of India. Poorly sourced. Too many primary sources (IANAL), and one with a declared conflict of interest. 49.36.181.224 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:+1 152.58.33.132 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::We either removed all ongoing litigation (I am in favor of this) or none of it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:Definintely the play-by-play should be removed, much of that is source to primary documents anyway. The existence of the case has been noted by News Laundry and I'm okay with keeping that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This video commentary - https://youtube.com/watch?v=n4LFcfY_Okw - suggests that there have been recent changes on the Wikimedia Foundation fund raising info page shown in India - and the reporter suggests that the funds that were collected recently in India may have been blocked by the Indian government. Shyamal (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:That is not a good source. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::It's not an RS, but I did actually find it worth watching, and he shows the actual page (at about 16:15) saying "We are not fundraising in your country at this time", so someone in India could take a screenshot of what they are seeing at [https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give the page as it appears there]. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Have to say I like this guy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

::::He's hilarious. Valereee (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:WMF-comment of fundraising: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1260973468] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

[https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/openai-chatgpt-delhi-high-court-summons-news-agency-ani-copyright-infringement-plea-fake-news-wikimedia-foundation-11732000483630.html][https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-hc-issues-summons-to-openai-on-anis-copyright-violation-plea-against-chatgpt/article68885741.ece/amp/] ANI claimed "that ChatGPT falsely attributed political news to the agency, which could lead to the spread of fake news and potentially cause public disorder." Should this be mentioned in the article? - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:It seems journalism is not enough to pay the bills anymore. "In the first such suit alleging copyright infringement by OpenAI, the news agency has sought damages of Rs 2 crore" [https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-high-court-open-ai-response-copyright-infringement-suit-ani-9677432/] - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::OR maybe Wikipedia is no longer place of "educational purpose" and expansion of knowledge anymore. Anyone is free to file as many case as they want to if necessary, for that matter ChatGPT has been sued by many organizations for various reasons `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 20:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:Suggest a text. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:However remember Wikipedia is not wp:news and really this might be seen as wp:undue, any one can launch a court case, what matters is how it ends. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:i added more details about what ANI vs OpenAI entails. Cononsense (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::I do not think we need blow by blow account s of any cases. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:::My edits were not blow by blow imho (like dates and such). More so high level details about the case. Cononsense (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In case someone wonders why there are now two of these templates: They have a "max" of 30 items, so a second one was needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it should get a mention. Question is where? In the infobox and which section? Source:[https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/indian-news-agency-ani-sues-openai-unsanctioned-content-use-ai-training-2024-11-19/ Reuters] 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 08:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:You could add "As of 2024, Reuters own..." after "In 1993, Reuters purchased a stake in ANI, and it was allowed to exert a complete monopoly over their India feed." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Should we also note than in infobox? I think yes. But in brackets after {{xt|ANI Media Private Limited}}. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 09:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:Do we list anyone else who owns shares? Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikimedia-must-remove-india-content-deemed-defamatory-court-rules/article69411803.ece Wikimedia had argued before the court that it is an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore, has no role with respect to the statements made by three individuals who edited ANI’s page on its platform.]

Why WMF throwing the editors under the bus. My question to WMF Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Much as I agree that WMF should do more to protect us, they are kind of right. They have no authority to tell us what to do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::It’s like WMF is saying to the Indian courts, ‘Do whatever you want with them—raid their homes, arrest them, make their lives hell. Their edits? Not our headache.’ It feels cold… like they’re just tossing people to the wolves and walking away without a second thought Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Those poor 3 individuals Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, they are saying "we do not employ them, we do not tell them what to do, we are not responsible for their actions". This is how WMF has always operated; they are not (in fact) in charge of any wiki. And this is snow entering wp:soap territory, if yoo have a complaint against WMF take it up with them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Arguing anything other than that means the WMF is responsible for what we all say and has to take a proactive role in moderating content. Yes, it has to preserve its intermediary status (which has much weaker protections in India compared to the US) while also trying to help the involved editors, which is a difficult tightrope. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"[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)

[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}}

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)

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)

{{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)