Talk:Asian News International

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asian News International article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Asian News International. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Asian News International at the Reference desk.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Delhi High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Wikipedia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Nupur Thapliyal (2024-07-09). "ANI Files Rs 2 Crore Defamation Suit Against Wikipedia Before Delhi High Court, Summons Issued". LiveLaw.
"ANI files defamation claim against Wikipedia, demands Rs 2 crore in damages". Scroll.in. 2024-07-09.
Khadija Khan (2024-07-11). "Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia?". The Indian Express. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
Aroon Deep (2024-07-12). "Wikipedia parent responds to ANI defamation suit, says content by volunteer editors". The Hindu. Retrieved 2024-07-12.
Nupur Thapliyal (2024-09-06). "'If You Don't Like India, Don't Work Here': Delhi High Court To Wikipedia On ANI's Contempt Plea Over Defamation Dispute". LiveLaw. Retrieved 2024-09-06.
Deep, Aroon (2024-09-10). "On ANI's defamation suit against Wikipedia | Explained". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
Nishant Shah (2024-09-17). "Why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information". The Indian Express. Retrieved 2024-09-18.
Tanishka Sodhi (2024-09-18). "Explained: What's ANI vs Wikipedia legal battle all about?". Newslaundry. Retrieved 2024-09-18.
Pete Hunt (September 22, 2024). "Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia?". The Diplomat. Retrieved September 22, 2024.
Simone Lobo (October 10, 2024). "Video: Wikipedia vs ANI—All About the Delhi HC Case and How it Can Affect Information Flow in India". MediaNama. Retrieved October 10, 2024.
Bhavini Srivastava (October 14, 2024). "Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI's page". Bar and Bench. Retrieved October 14, 2024.
Nupur Thapliyal (October 14, 2024). "Delhi High Court Takes Exception To Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI, Says Majesty Of Court Is Over And Above Anyone". LiveLaw. Retrieved October 14, 2024.
"'Extremely disturbing': Delhi HC on Wikipedia's refusal to identify ANI page editors". Scroll.in. October 14, 2024. Retrieved October 14, 2024.
"Delhi HC slams Wikipedia for its dedicated page on the ongoing lawsuit against it by ANI". The Hindu. October 14, 2024. Retrieved October 15, 2024.
"Delhi High Court to Wikipedia: You may be world's powerful entity but we live in a country which …". The Times of India. October 14, 2024. Retrieved October 15, 2024.
Sohini Ghosh (October 15, 2024). "Non-transparent system will have to go: Delhi HC pulls up Wikipedia". The Indian Express. Retrieved October 15, 2024.
Abhinav Garg (October 15, 2024). "High court warns Wikipedia for bid to put pressure on judge". The Times of India. Retrieved October 15, 2024.
Shruti Kakkar (October 15, 2024). "'Can't defame someone': HC raps Wiki in defamation case". Hindustan Times. Retrieved October 15, 2024.
Abhinav Garg (October 22, 2024). "Delhi HC closes contempt case against Wikipedia". The Times of India. Retrieved October 22, 2024.
Bhavini Srivastava (October 25, 2024). "Delhi High Court flags Wikipedia model as "dangerous"". Bar & Bench. Retrieved October 25, 2024.
Pratik Kanjilal (October 26, 2024). "Lessons from Wikipedia". The New Indian Express. Retrieved October 26, 2024.
Umang Poddar (October 30, 2024). "Why Wikipedia has landed in legal trouble in India". BBC. Retrieved October 30, 2024.
Apoorva Mandhani (October 30, 2024). "In ANI vs Wikimedia, Round 1 goes to India's tech law. The US firm has taken a beating twice". ThePrint. Retrieved October 30, 2024.
Sharveya Parasnis (November 4, 2024). "Delhi High Court: Why Should Wikipedia Editors Remain Anonymous?". MediaNama. Retrieved November 4, 2024.
Vineet Bhalla (November 5, 2024). "A Delhi High Court case could end up threatening how Wikipedia works in India". Scroll.in. Retrieved November 5, 2024.
Manisha Pandey (November 5, 2024). "Government raps Wikipedia over 'bias', says small group controls edits: Sources". India Today. Retrieved November 5, 2024.
Shruti Kakkar (November 5, 2024). "Disclaimer won't absolve you of anything: HC to Wikipedia". Hindustan Times. Retrieved November 5, 2024.
Sharveya Parasnis (November 6, 2024). "Republic TV to Pursue Legal Action Against Wikipedia, Citing Bias and "Agenda"". MediaNama. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
"Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia users who edited ANI page". The Hindu. November 14, 2024. Retrieved November 16, 2024.
Nupur Thapliyal (November 14, 2024). "Defamation Suit: Delhi High Court Issues Summons To Users Who 'Edited' ANI's Wikipedia Page". The Hindu. Retrieved November 16, 2024.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Sharveya Parasnis (November 14, 2024). "Wikipedia to Serve Summons to Editors On Behalf Of ANI: Delhi HC". MediaNama. Retrieved November 16, 2024.
Vasudevan Mukunth (November 29, 2024). "Wikipedia and the ANI defamation suit Explained". The Hindu. Retrieved December 1, 2024.
Sharveya Parasnis (December 16, 2024). "Wikipedia's Actions Go Beyond Intermediary Status: ANI To Delhi HC". MediaNama. Retrieved December 16, 2024.
Bhavini Srivastava (December 18, 2024). "Delhi High Court to examine Caravan, Ken articles to decide interim relief in ANI vs Wikipedia". Bar and Bench.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

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)[reply]

(ANI) contested Wikipedia's intermediary status under the Information Technology (IT) Rules

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users:

103.29.116.83 (talk · contribs · block log)
Madarsa Chhap (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Edit request to add this in this section Asian News International (ANI) contested Wikipedia's intermediary status under the Information Technology (IT) Rules. Sidhant Kumar, the attorney for ANI, contended that the platform might be going beyond what the intermediary guidelines actually permitted because Wikipedia was offering the editors legal assistance. According to Kumar, intermediaries were not allowed to provide communication links or facilitate such communication because of Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act. Judge Subramonium Prasad made the observation that there would very well be a "war" between two users with more editing rights if they disagreed. With a hierarchical structure, certain users have more editorial rights than others on Wikipedia. Kumar contended that what it actually does is outsource to another user, which is against Section 79. In the event that intermediaries do not "select or modify the information contained in the transmission," they are protected from liability under Section 79 of the IT Act. 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Source~~

~~https://www.medianama.com/2024/12/223-wiki-actions-go-beyond-intermediary-status-ani-delhi-hc/ 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~@Slatersteven: 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is in the media now it doesn't necessarily has to be in this WP-article now. This might get interesting, but just because the lawyers say stuff, we don't have to rush to include it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree that this doesn't belong, especially here on this article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not the place for a play-by-play of the lawsuit. If anyone wants to do that, they are welcome to at Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, but not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia And while doing so, refrain from disclosing the names of judges hearing the case. This precaution aims to prevent online harassment, trolling, and potential abuse directed at judicial personnel.

Avoid including any information that could jeopardize the ongoing legal proceedings. This includes speculative details, unverified claims, or anything that could potentially influence the outcome of the case. Focus solely on verifiable facts and publicly available information.

Be aware that a previous Wikipedia page related to this matter was taken down by court order. This underscores the importance of exercising extreme caution when contributing information about sub judice matters. Madarsa Chhap (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the judges in question are very much in the public record and mentioned by newspapers of record:

[1]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-hc-issues-summons-to-wikipedia-users-who-edited-ani-page/article68868247.ece

I agree with the rest of your message though. Cononsense (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Cononsense My own integrity prevents me from following the example of those who act improperly, even if they avoid consequences Madarsa Chhap (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

We are not censored. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know: Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which begs the question why can we then mention it here, if we are (legally) not allowed to mention it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clash of cultures and expectations here. The concept of sub judice runs strong in many Commonwealth nations, India included. It is considered inappropriate to discuss matters of ongoing legal proceedings in the public, in this case the article may have been considered as a public venue/avenue (After all, it did gained tens of thousands of views before it was taken down). I don't think the judge did care much about other venues that we write on about the case. After all, Talk pages and other namespaces' pages are generally not indexed by search engines, and the Chinese version is only read by the Chinese readers. They don't have many Chinese readers in India. This of course runs contrary to the free speech that some others expouse and accustomed to. – robertsky (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it means (to my mind) we currently can't mention actual statements made in court, we can't "discuss" the trial in article space. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yup, you got it. – robertsky (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the cultural context! yes, in the united states such broad restrictions are unconstitutional, tho courts do very specific gag orders in unusual cases. but your info is useful so we can be mindful. Cononsense (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to be removed

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

103.29.116.83 (talk · contribs · block log)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

No consensus to implement. IP may be a sock of a LTA, like DavidWood11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has recently been blocked for socking this page. Hemiauchenia (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request to Narendra Modi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=993740998

Trangabellam's edit introduced the controversial term "propaganda" into the article on 17-Dec-2020 without sufficient factual basis. The reference to The Caravan appears to be primarily grounded in assumptions, speculation, and hypotheses, rather than concrete evidence. This claim is therefore factually incorrect and should be removed.

Thanks Col J. Singh 103.29.116.83 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by sources that have been reviewed and considered reliable and support the statement. Ravensfire (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to distinguish between speculation and fact. While speculation may be interesting, it should not be treated as definitive truth devoid of facts impractical for an encyclopedia. The Caravan author didnt provided a single concrete factual evidence. However, it goes well with tabloid. The credibility of the source cannot be used as an excuse for skewing facts and truths. 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please gain consensus for a change before requesting an edit to a protected page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On December 17, 2020, the contentious word "propaganda" was added to this page. However, rather than providing hard evidence, the reference article The Caravan & The Ken, from which it is derived, seems to rely more on conjecture and hypotheses. As a result, this assertion is untrue and ought to be eliminated.

This is a request for comments asking for support and oppose to the word "propoganda" to be kept in the article. 103.29.116.83 (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support it seems well sourced. We do not say they do we say they are accused, they have been accused. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended confirmed edit request in December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Duplicate sentence in the OpenAI section saying:

The Delhi High Court heard the case first on 19 November 2024, and is scheduled to hear it again on 28 January 2025.The Delhi High Court heard the case first on 19 November 2024, and is scheduled to hear it again on 28 January 2025.

Delete duplicate sentence. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 05:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters's 26% interest in ANI

I suppose it should get a mention. Question is where? In the infobox and which section? Source:Reuters 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 08:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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