Talk:Asian News International

Informal poll: Mouthpiece

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)

Responses

• 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? Lunar-akaunto／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)

Discussion

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. Lunar-akaunto／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". Lunar-akaunto／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)

Content sub-heading

To change the content sub-heading back to "Propaganda"? My reasoning is the same as before. Lunar-akaunto／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)

Reverting; removing "propaganda" undervalues the sources' wordings and is not in line with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. 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. Lunar-akaunto／talk 14:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Editor privacy compromised or not (yet)?

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.. [1] - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

My mistake - toning down the language in the article, I did not (but should have) checked the ref for accuracy. This change should more accurately reflect the 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

• SCO Shorts: Sealed Cover Jurisprudence and
• '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 § Closed material procedures. 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:

1. ANI file defamation suit against WMF.
2. The court asked the intermidiary/publisher about the details of the editor who carried out the questionable edits.
3. 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.
4. 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. 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. [2] - 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)

@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)

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 [3]. 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)

Newslaundry investigation into ANI

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)

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)

The Wikipedian weighs in...

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)