Talk:Asian News International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dustfreeworld (talk | contribs) at 18:56, 19 October 2024 (→Article improvement: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Are there any representatives for ANI here?

Has anyone connected to ANI made any comment(s) on this page or tried to edit the article? Please let us know here. (When I write "us", I am referring to editors in general, not the Wikimedia Foundation.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not representatives although related to it, the intro is far too focused on criticizing with half of the intro with negative tone which is more than it weighs. I agree past shouldn't be erased which indeed it isn't but what is worth off mentioning in the particular article should be cared. In addition, As an user pointed out most of the sources used here is Caravan, is that generally good enough or powerful to retain the claim or is it unbias generally to consider. Is there renowned newspaper like The Hindu, The Times of India, Indian Express or others reviewing so mention such things or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.189.201 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS , I think some claim are overly exaggerated too much for the subjects like propaganda and fake news especially the preceding lines in the Para of the Content section to the extent that almost all of the News website are common to it and this shouldn't even worth mentioning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.189.201 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biased sources are accepted on Wikipedia, so long as there is proper attribution of claims to those sources. That has been done in this article. The only sources that are not accepted are those which contain misinformation. Can you describe where exactly there is misinformation in the Caravan article? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 08:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read the cited article in The Ken and the editor who added that it said propaganda tool, Winged Blades of Godric, has been inactive for years. Can anyone confirm that The Ken actually says "propaganda tool"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true Vivaxe (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Lawsuit

This section mentions The case is scheduled for a hearing on August 20. What are the updates? 14.139.128.53 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an update from today:
Bar and Bench: "Will ask government to block you": Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia, 5 September 2024.
Judge: "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."
— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody with the know how of this site please give the diff of the edit where "propoganda tool" word is first introduced in this page. 14.139.114.221 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 27 December 2019. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that might be it, the user who made that edit is inactive, also the allegations regarding right leaning coverage were there for years before it. Averagepcuser (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove the defamatory statements from this page otherwise Wikipedia will be forever blocked in India. 2402:8100:384E:22D0:F546:923:8D3A:6D2B (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool down, nothings going to happen. Wikipedia is not at risk, but the sources which support the article are. Wikipedia is just a tertiary source, its not the source of information. The courts should really work into the sources which are supporting the sentences. I.Mahesh (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are under no obligation to remove information simply because ANI doesn't like it. It is covered in other reliable sources; it would be a disservice to the goal of free and open knowledge to remove it. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 15:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't do much about it. Indian courts and Indian laws.If you don't like the Indian Judiciary, you would be the one who is doing disservice to the global community by taking sides. Telugujoshi (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contentious content may only be removed with a consensus of editors. Not because a news agency is weaponizing India's draconian laws to threaten a non profit into revealing identities of its editors. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the very foundation of Wikipedia articles - a consensus reading of reliable, independent, secondary sources by laypeople - you are welcome to stop editing. Maybe you should think of doing something about draconian Indian laws rather than demanding Wikipedia stops being Wikipedia just to bend to them. The Foundation is headquartered in California in the United States; ANI is welcome to file a defamation lawsuit there if they are truly being lied about (they aren't and they know it, which is why they want the case to be prosecuted in India where things will probably be considered defamation even if they are true, so long as the aggrieved party is close to the government). Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 14:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM - lets focus here on improving the content of this article and the more meta stuff elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pretty much this. Consider this - why isn't ANI going after the sources used in the article? So, to any editor in good standing that's in India and worried about making an edit here that's backed by sources, please email me with the details (and the sources!) and I'll be glad to consider the material and make edits that I think are warranted. Ravensfire (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI
Can you please give a reason for me to stop editing? I haven't broken any rules yet. Wikipedia is open for all to read and edit. what is your authority to ask me to refrain from editing, please? Telugujoshi (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you to refrain from editing only if you disagree with the basic principle of what editing in an encyclopedia should be - to repeat, a consensus reading of secondary, reliable, independent sources, free from whatever outside influence the article subject attempts to apply on us. I recommend this in my standing as a fellow editor. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 11:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Largely, the decision on if you should or should not edit this article should be your decision based on your awareness of potential risks. But, please don't edit the article in a way to bow to the clueless demands from ANI that would be contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. I think that everyone is aware that the actions from ANI are designed to create a chilling effect on Indian editors and puts them in a difficult place. Edit at your comfort level, but follow as best possible the principles of Wikipedia, even if that means not making edits. Ravensfire (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think wikipedia has gotten too big now lol, I think it's now risky to edit wikipedia in political pages if you live in a country which is slipping towards authoritarianism. Given wiki's liberal ideals don't go hand in hand with those regimes.
I was fairly new to wiki, but after this case I am going to think thrice before editing a political page. Given the deterioration of lower courts in this country. I should probably stick to editting science pages. Averagepcuser (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ANI can go to ICJ too. Just saying. universe is not California centric. Telugujoshi (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Telugujoshi: They will surely not go to any other courts because they know they are wrong. I doubt that if this matter goes to the Supreme Court of India, the Court will dismiss the case, understanding that Wikipedia does not state or claim these challenged words, but rather that reliable independent sources have said them. GrabUp - Talk 03:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you understand what the International Court of Justice is. Go look it up - helpfully, this website is an encyclopedia. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 11:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does India really cares about International court of justice? Does that court even functions as intended? or is it just another organisation which stopped working as intended?Like wasn't that organisation for between nation conflicts and even if it wasn't I am not sure if it even works. Averagepcuser (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2024

2409:4063:4B17:7453:3AAC:41E2:6C43:DA2F (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake opinion about ani

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GrabUp - Talk 16:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MoU partnerships

I've found these so far, altho I haven't found a coverage in another source. Perhaps these are like press releases. I don't know how they turned out. FYI for reference.

References

  1. ^ "WAM, ANI sign MoU on news exchange". Emirates News Agency. 20 September 2018. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  2. ^ "Mizzima delegates meeting with Mr Sanjiv Prakash, CEO of Asian News International (ANI) in New Delhi on 22 November 2019". Mizzima News. 22 November 2019. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  3. ^ "CNA, ANI sign MOU on news sharing". Central News Agency (Taiwan). 21 January 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  4. ^ "ANI Media Private Limited announces launch of "My India" Weekly India TV show to Air in the US on KOMO-TV's FAST Channel and YouTube TV Channel". Sinclair Broadcast Group. 25 April 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.

— DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 11:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1, 3 and 4 are clear press releases, 2 is just a gallery of photos. Ravensfire (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming subsection "Propaganda" to "State-sponsored propaganda"

How many of you agree that the title of the subsection should be changed from 'Propaganda' to 'State-sponsored propaganda', because the section discusses how ANI has acted as a tool for the incumbent Indian governments to promote their agendas, in this case using the lone term 'Propaganda' doesn't make sense. Hu741f4 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so clear how often it was used for state sponsored propaganda until some years ago. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the contents of the section, the term "State-sponsored propaganda", rather than just "Propaganda" seems more relevant and complete. Hu741f4 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestions

Would adding obvious context to the contentious text be helpful?

“ANI has been accused by Indian news organisations of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent….” Or alternatively and at the risk of being a mouthful, “Multiple news organisations/media watchdogs have accused ANI of having served as a….”

Can “Content” subsection heading be reworked?

Change Content to “Propaganda and Misinformation Allegations,” only because the current subsection heading seems confusing and random. MeowMeow77 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple? I see cites of two: The Caravan and The Ken. (newslaundry is just quoting The Caravan.) The Ken has a paywall. I'll repeat what I asked on August 7: Can anyone confirm that The Ken actually says "propaganda tool"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly saw this and thought it would be interesting to see if I could track it down. Someone has posted the article elsewhere online, I won't link it as it's obviously copyvio. The specific words are never used, but if I had to summarise what was said it would match the current article content. You could change "propaganda tool" to "acting as a mouth piece", but it would just be weaseling.
It's notable that the article is mostly about ANI's business practices, and that they act as the mouth piece of whichever party is in power is mentioned very casually. It doesn't read as a being controversial to the author, just something that has allowed ANI to keep their business dominance. The "of the incumbent government" appears very relevant as the article makes clear this isn't particularly about the current government, just whoever is in power at the time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources which say similar things:

Propaganda has been the bread and butter for ANI with successive governments and departments, making programmes for Doordarshan’s Kashmir and Northeast channels, for the home ministry and external affairs ministry, among others. ANI has also made fakes videos using footage it produces and addding logos of Pakistan channels such as Geo TV, ARY and Dunya.

In 2018, AltNews, the fact-checking outlet, published a long list of the agency’s “inadvertent errors and oversights”, all of which seem to be aligned with the government's interests. In March 2019, an investigation by Caravan magazine claimed close ties between ANI and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Last week, EU DisinfoLab, a Brussels-based NGO, alleged that the agency was part of a large-scale disinformation campaign in Europe to allegedly further the interests of Modi and the Indian government.

[EU Disinfo Lab's] researchers, who are based in Brussels, believe the network's purpose is to disseminate propaganda against India's neighbour and rival Pakistan. Both countries have long sought to control the narrative against the other.

In addition, the report implicated Asian News International (ANI), an Indian news agency, for covering and disseminating fake news produced by the network. Though the report was careful not to tie the network to the Indian state, there is little doubt that such a vast enterprise could and would exist only with the government’s knowledge.

ANI has already been accused of serving as a propaganda channel for certain interests of the Indian government and its articles are regularly picked up by media outlets in the region.

A broad coalition of over 35 civil rights and interfaith organizations in the United States, UK, Australia, Canada and India, on 4 August, sent a letter to Thomson-Reuters, urging the media agency to terminate its partnership and investment in the Asian News Agency (ANI) due to “its Islamophobic reporting and dissemination of pro-Hindu nationalist government propaganda.”

“ANI is an India-based news service that relays false information, quotes non-existent sources and non-existent institutions, actively collaborates with India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to relay government messaging, and shows a pattern of anti-Muslim bias in its reporting,” read the press release by the coalition.

ANI’s reputation since 2014 is of being pro-government to the point of being crude. The truth is it’s always leaned towards the powers that be for access and business. Every second tweet from its regional X handles are on chief ministers.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to second what @ActivelyDisinterested has said about the Ken. Similary, while Caravan also doesn't say 'propaganda tool' it does mention the blatant government propaganda in abundance and also mentions it as "a formidable tool in the hands of the ruling party".
On another note, wouldn't it be better to change the excerpt from "ANI has been accused of having served as a propaganda tool…" to "ANI serves as a propaganda tool…" in the lede? I mean, this is not much of an accusation when they [both the ANI and the government] have repeatedly admitted to it in interviews. This is especially true from The Ken's article. Lunar-akaunto／talk 18:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this wording. The accusation is an obvious reality today.Ratnahastin (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“ANI serves as a propaganda tool….” is being over zealous with respect to Wiki’s SOP. We are an aggregator of verified information, not creators. As much as we would like to state what we believe to be true, we can’t. At best, we can suggest that someone has accused them or that they have admitted to it/claimed it. And, we have to have citations. MeowMeow77 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true — see WP:WIKIVOICE. The debate always hinges on whether an 'opinion' is so widely held that it has effectively become a 'fact'. Here, I will argue that it is still an (albeit, rather unanimous) opinion. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal

Dear Joe Sutherland (WMF)

Because of alleged libelous content in this article, ANI has filed a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation. The BBC, Caravan, and Alt News are among the "reliable sources" cited in this article. The BBC has long been accused of being biased toward the left and liberal. [1][2]

During hearing the Judge mentioned: "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."

This is for your information with an appeal to delete the objectionable content.

TheKunda (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Hi TheKunda, please note that legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. An article subject suing the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), by itself, is not an adequate reason for Wikipedia editors to delete article content. Because Wikipedia is not censored, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so." The WMF may decide to take an office action with respect to Asian News International's lawsuit, although that outcome is exceedingly unlikely based on the outcomes of past lawsuits of a similar nature. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to enforce the demands of litigants – that would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy against advocacy. Contested article content is only removed when doing so would bring the article into stronger compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
BBC (RSP entry), The Caravan, and Alt News are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia due to their "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per past discussions; feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard if you would like to inquire about the reliability of these news organizations. Additionally, on Wikipedia, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you locate reliable sources that describe Asian News International in a different way, please share those sources. — Newslinger talk 17:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am not Joe Sutherland of the WMF. JSutherland (WMF) can provide his own response if he chooses to do so. — Newslinger talk 21:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gentle reminder ! JSutherland (WMF) TheKunda (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
TheKunda, read Section 230 and understand that WMF staff will not edit the content of Wikipedia. Cabayi (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia has no requirement to remove sourced material upon request from non-US courts, and in this case it won't be. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont somebody delete the offending part ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Asked and answered; requester's lack of understanding of WP is beyond our remit to resolve here. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont somebody delete the offending part ? Vivaxe (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's offensive to you maybe perfectly acceptable to others. Read WP:NOTCENSORED. And wikipedia works on consensus. — hako9 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot say in public, anything that causes Mental Harassment, affects reputation or degrade a person in front of society. In a private conversation, it is not illegal. But when somebody says, that a person is accused of something, it is better that the unproven accusation be kept out of the facts about that person. Vivaxe (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot say in public... I can actually. — hako9 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several somebodies have, but atm the article has a WP:BLUELOCK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is locked it means wikipedia is responsible for the contents right ? Why does it want to take responsibility ? When a legally established court of law of a country holds that the statement made in the article is illegal, why do you want to hold on to that ? And get punished by the court ? The court is entited to punish wikipedia as the Constitution of India. So what can be done ? Also, and it seems, nobody has filed appeal against the original order of the court and it is now in the contempt of court stage. Vivaxe (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian court has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia other than the ability to block the website in India. The court seems incapable of understanding that Wikipedia only reflects reliable sources. Yet none of those reliable sources (which include the BBC and the Guardian) have been summoned, merely the tertiary source! Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if the court is blocking Wikipedia in India ? Vivaxe (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's regrettable, but if we remove information that governments or news organisations don't like every time they threaten legal action then our impartiality would be irrevocably comprised. "State X" doesn't like that our article points out their human rights record is poor and threatens to block the site unless we whitewash their image? Sad, but it's better we report the facts than kowtow to threats. Valenciano (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The peculiar situation in India is that, the Indian Judiciary has more powers than Indian Government and Indian Parliament. This is something most foreign organisations dont know. Vivaxe (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be unfortunate, but Wikipedia will continue. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we write about it at Censorship of Wikipedia, and probably start a Block of Wikipedia in Turkey style article. And supposedly the Indian people will support the judiciary, so there will be no problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have to do that shortly and its a very good idea. And about Indian People, the 1,500 million of them, 95% are struggling to make ends meet and slogging for survival and they absolutely dont care about the judiciary or Wikipedia. Vivaxe (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that locking of WP-articles, like the writing of articles, is done by WP-volunteers? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If are locking something, it becomes the responsibilty and liability of the exclusive people who only have rights to modify it. Its not a good idea and its against the principle that anyone can edit the content. Vivaxe (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am jumping into this, @Vivaxe, I understand your concerns, but it seems like you may not be fully aware of how Wikimedia operates. Wikimedia is built on principles of neutrality and freedom of expression. It's important to contribute thoughtfully and responsibly, without unintentionally harming India's image or values. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivaxe, Additionally, it seems you may not fully grasp the implications of your statements. Are you suggesting that the Indian courts act like dictators by advocating for the blocking of Wikimedia in India? This is a very unfortunate perspective. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Judiciary has basically unlimited power, even to quash parts of the Constitution of India, take action against the Government of India and also to quash laws made by the Indian Parliament. It is the most powerful Judiciary in the world. Vivaxe (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is better than words. Especially when one doesn't know what they are talking about. — hako9 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The litigation has nothing to do with the State of India. This is a pure Tort liability suit for which the remedy is available in all Commonweath Countries that follow Common Law. The Indian Government or Indian Parliament or Indina Judiciary has not suo moto initiated this case. This is a pure private litigation between ANI and Wikipedia on the claim that Wikipedia has offended the reputation of ANI. It is a pure Tort suit / litigation. The laws made by the Parliament and the Constitution of India has given the court power to take action in such cases. The Indian Government has nothing against Wikipedia Vivaxe (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weeeell...[3] Sure, that was in 2020, but politicians remember. A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia may be of interest. It's from 2019, things may or may not have calmed down. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I meant in the context of this particular litigation. The Government is not a party in it. The links hat you placed is correct. Vivaxe (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you threatening Wikipedia editors here? We are editors, not a governing body of Wikipedia and whatever the decision your court or government takes, won't harm us. Hu741f4 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only said that WP:BLUELOCK be removed since Wikipedia need not take responsibility for the contents of an article. All countries have many kind of laws. Why do you want to face unwanted trouble ? Vivaxe (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bluelock does not in any way represent an approval of the content by "Wikipedia" or the Wikimedia Foundation or any other sort of editorial board. Your comments demonstrate a massive misunderstanding of WP, its policies, and processes. You have asked to have content removed. Your request has been overwhelmingly denied based on multiple policies and guidelines. I'm closing this discussion as it is not likely to lead to any further action but only further IDHT and shades of CIR. DMacks (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved editor needs to collapse and archive this mess WP:TPG. — hako9 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 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.

Article improvement

I have added some tags to the article as there seems to be dispute over it’s neutrality, both on-wiki and off-wiki. Aside, I think it’s probably a good idea to have the extended conform protection removed as well. The article has been protected for almost five months already. Yes, FOS *is* important, and it’s important for everyone. It would be best if no party is being shut up. I’ll try to see what I can do to improve the article. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really think it's a bad idea to remove the ECP, for many reasons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Contentious topics applies to this page and the respective protection is a normal procedure. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Some" tags is an understatement. I am removing all of these because you haven't justified any insertion. Where's the dispute over neutrality? — hako9 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read from this source [4] that “Regarding Asian News International’s claim that its page was not editable, Wikimedia explained that ... Experienced editors can still improve the article following Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, verifiability, and reliability.” I would interpret that as WMF also has some concerns about the neutrality of this article, but, I can be wrong. Anyway, none of the tags I added explicitly say that there’s problem with neutrality, so that’s just my personal opinion.
Aside, if only *some* tags are not ok with you, why are all of them removed? I don’t think there’s any problem adding the {{In use}} tag. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the use of that tag? We don't have a hundred editors editing simultaneously and causing edit conflicts. The activity is negligible because of extended protection. — hako9 (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that I got one revert and four article talk page comments in around an hour just after I started edit the article. I don’t think the activity is “negligible”. And, do we have *any rule* saying that we need to ask for permission on talk page first before adding tags such as “In use”? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&oldid=1252091385"