Jump to content

Talk:Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 20:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

(
)
Created by Valereee (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 74 past nominations.
  • Article is new enough (created 10/10), long enough, sourced, presentable, and no copyvio detected. Hook is interesting, short enough and supported by in-line citation. QPQ satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Cbl62! Valereee (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee and Cbl62: I was going to promote this per the callout at WT:DYK, however I'm sure there's a policy that says that even content about Wikipedia needs to be cited, and so some of the Background section would deserve {{cn}}.--Launchballer 19:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Launchballer, oh, good point. I've removed for now, I'll keep looking to see if I can find mention somewhere. I know it must be out there. Valereee (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: Previous rulings involving Wikipedia

@Valereee: I fail to understand the relevance of including the court case Hewlett Packard India Sales vs. Commissioner of Customs in the said section. Earlier part of the section mentions adversarial actions by Indian govt/courts against wikipedia, whereas this case involves an Indian court cautioning a small-time customs official against using wikipedia as a source in litigation, which is hardly noteworthy besides being irrelevant. — hako9 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The source mentioned the two other cases as related. I'm afraid I can't get to that source right now, must have hit my limit for whatever time period, iabot is timing out, and wayback is down lol...can you see it? Valereee (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll send a mail. — hako9 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! So I figured if the source thought these other cases were relevant enough to give them three paragraphs in a not-long piece, we should at least mention them? Valereee (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
2 paras btw. The Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers Organisation case is relevant. Intelligence is not a trait that is needed to be a journo in India, imo. I don't know if they are paid by the word. Anyways, we don't have to follow what the source says to a tee. — hako9 (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
No, we don't. Why don't you trim, and I'll take a look? Valereee (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks good! Valereee (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the "Previous actions against Wikipedia"([by whom?]) heading (the content is fine), but I can't think of a good one atm. "Previous issues regarding Wikipedia in India" is a bit vague. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree. I struggled with it. Open to whatever. Valereee (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
It's quite a short section, so I'd suggest knocking it into an earlier paragraph.--Launchballer 09:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
It's short, but I think it's justified. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And we (as in this particular WP-article) got press

Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI's page

I quote: "The Court also took strong objection against Wikipedia allowing a page titled 'Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation' to be published in relation to the present case. It asked the platform to seek instructions in this regard and listed the matter for hearing on Wednesday. "What we are finding is extremely disturbing that you think you are beyond the ambit of law. Look at the page. You are disclosing something about a sub-judice matter," the Court remarked."

What are we (as in the part of the WP-community that bothered to edit this article) disclosing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That said, the court seems to dislike the mention of Chawla's name.[1]. We can remove that, I guess, but it's certainly widely reported per WP:BLPNAME:[2], and not just for this event:[3]. Apparently the doings of high court judges are considered interesting by the press. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Ping @JSutherland (WMF) if you have any input. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Noting that I removed Chawla's name from the lead, but it's still in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
We should remove His order to WMF to release the identities of the editors who made the edits has been called censorship and a threat to the flow of information., written in the lead. It states in wikivoice what is attributed to two persons (Nishant Shah and Nikhil Pahwa) only. See WP:VOICE. No point in removing mention of the Judge's name. That is a matter of widely known fact. Regarding your question of what are we disclosing that is not public info...afaik sub-judice doctrine prevents any person from influencing matters pending in courts or diminishing the integrity of legal proceedings. It doesn't necessarily matter if the info is in public domain or not. There's a lot of discretion involved in determining what negatively influences pending legal proceedings in Indian courts (sec. 4,7 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971). — hako9 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I see your point, but IMO that lead-text is not glaringly against VOICE, it's a reasonable summary of the current Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation#Reaction section. I have no strong opinion either way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Happy to attribute it in the lead also. Happy to move the sourcing into the lead, too. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Reporting the proceedings of the court does not fall within contempt, unless there is a specific bar like in camera hearing. Also, the observations of the court unless in form of an order does not require WMF to take a decision to take down an article. Supreme Court of India will side with WMF if the court is approached. Legaleagle86 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Reporting the proceedings of the court does not fall within contempt Yes obviously. The sentence I quoted above which has now been edited, is not necessarily "fair and accurate reporting" under Indian law, imo, because what's fair and accurate is not defined. It is a comment made by noteworthy individuals though, so may merit inclusion. And leave aside oral observations, WMF can choose not to obey any orders by any Indian courts too. — hako9 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Observations of the Bench of the Chief Justice of The Delhi High Court (verbatim?)

This page [titled ANI v. Wikipedia] will have to be taken down by your client in case he even wants to be heard. Otherwise we will not hear him. And we’ll direct the single judge not to hear him. You can’t put the single judge in fear or threaten him.
— https://x.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1845722727635701876

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the Court took umbrage at this line:

The judge in the case, Navin Chawla, has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country.

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Judge's threat is being twisted into a Wikipedia's threat? How nice! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The words of the Madras High Court in 2023 come to mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Apparently the WMF:s lawyer is now asking the foundation for guidance. I wonder what they'll tell him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Like all good overpaid lawyers, they'll ask their client to comply (i.e take down the article and disclose editors identities). — hako9 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
WMF might consider that problematic. Well, a lot of Indian media is on case, so I guess we'll find out. Indian Wikipedians might want to do some research into how Turkish Wikipedians dealt with things 2017-2020, just in case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I do not really see WMF taking down the article. While they have the theoretical powers (WP:OFFICEACTION), I expect the community to not react very kindly. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
No it would not... Would be hilarious to see the WMF's role account and any staff accounts that attempted to interfere community banned though. Imagine the lawyer trying to explain that to the court... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

More from the court

"Accordingly, in the interim, this Court directs that the pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge as well as discussion of the observations of division bench be taken down or deleted within 36 hours".

Is that the court saying that this issue/whatever may not be discussed on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this from today? The report also notes,

He [Sibal, lawyer appearing for WMF] also stated that in the event the Court directs to take down the page and discussions, the said order will be complied with.

TrangaBellam (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, from today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Detailed reporting of the proceedings — It appears that WMF's lawyer agreed to take down the page. I think our page on Manmohan (judge) is covered under the ambit of the order, too. Further, it seems to be a broad brush order —

Accordingly, the court directed the Wikipedia to take down pages pertaining to this case, discussions or observations made during the hearing of this matter within 36 hours.

TrangaBellam (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Like the afd, talkpages, etc. If that's what it means, I do consider it slightly problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
If Sibal comes back to the court and says "Your honor, my client (WMF) haven't done/won't do that.", can he be arrested for contempt of court or whatever? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No. But there's no way he said wmf would comply with the takedown request, without the permission from wmf. — hako9 (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Given that the community has already discussed on a proposed deletion with a consensus to keep, the deletion route won't be from the community-side. There is currently not much of a way for the foundation to enforce a deletion without other admins stepping in, given that WP:SUPERPROTECT no longer exists. Current Category:Wikipedia Office-protected pages is empty. I wonder it had been used before... – robertsky (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:OA? They (WMF) can, I think, but will they think it's the reasonable thing to do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
If this source is right, their lawyer does: "Senior advocate Amit Sibal, who appeared for Wikipedia, submitted the platform would take down the page and discussion in the event the court directed it to take down both." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That was interesting to read, as that would have to be an office action. I'm wondering if there's a "*but we would immediately appeal such a decsision" unsaid there. This case is also mentioned and covered elsewhere, so do that end up being deleted? Or, it is just this actual page as that gets indexed by google, so draft would be okay. The utter foolishness of something like this is such a Streisand effect and everything in the page is from secondary sources.
This was extremely sad to read, where misplaced fear-mongering trumps free speech and ignores the excellent secondary sources that summarize this case so well. Profoundly disappointed in the court on this. Can't fault Wikimedia's lawyer as they don't have many options beyound appealing. Ravensfire (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't envy him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Some analysis/reaction

This article has some interesting comments Delhi High Court Orders Wikipedia to Remove Page in ANI Defamation Case, but per their aboutpage [4], I'm not sure it's one we should use. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

A lot of it reads AI-generated to me, and online AI detectors agree, so I don't think it should be used. BloubDeFontenilles (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Did not consider that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

PACER for India?

Does India have an equivalent of PACER where you can see the filings? Also, are there official transcripts of the proceedings? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The only one I've found frankly sucks. It's at [5]. You can do a party name search with Wikimedia as the party, 2024 as the year and it turns up two results (which is odd). Clicking on the Orders link for either doesn't get me anywhere, so I use the case number and type on the Case Wise tab to get to them. Case 524 type CS(OS) and Case 146 type FAO(OS). It only lists orders from the court (that I can tell), not filings from either party. Ravensfire (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
[6] appears to be a direct link to the case. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
[7] is a direct link to the more recent decision. Appears to be split out? Maybe appeal on something? Ravensfire (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Those are interim orders. Transcripts for oral arguments are not available because recording is not allowed in Delhi HC. You have to rely on journalists and law reporters who visit the court in person, and report what they noted. — hako9 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all these links.
From the order, it appears that the Judges took umbrage at our article mentioning the criticism of J. Chawla's comments. So, I assume that there is no objection to incorporating it and making the "proceedings" section more accurate? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
No objection! Valereee (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:AfD

Should we have a procedural vote on this article, or specifically the judges’ names, which seem to be the most offending issue? Bearian (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Already happened, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Per my reading "threatened" might be the moi. And, what the judges sees as WMF (all editors) "commenting" on the case on WP at all (article-space and outside it). And someone just created a WP-article on Chawla. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not the issue. What the judge finds in contempt is the claim his actions are an act of censorship and a threat to the flow of information. — hako9 (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not my reading of the reports on what's been said by Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela. They seem to dislike that this article etc puts Chawla in the spotlight and is (as they see it) an attempt by the WMF to put the fear of god in him and influence the court. But, this is outside the scope of this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
From Scroll.in[8]
The bench also took umbrage at the creation of a page about the suit on Wikipedia. The page says, with citations, that “[c]ritics have characterised [Chawla’s] order that the [Wikimedia Foundation] release the identities of the editors who made the edits as censorship and a threat to the flow of information”.
The bench took the prima facie view that this comment amounted to interference in court proceedings. It noted that since Wikipedia is a defendant in the suit, such comments on a webpage managed by it was a violation of the sub judice principle and bordered on contempt of court. — hako9 (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
About things being outside the scope of talkpage discussion, most of this talk page is a meta-commentary about the case, and gossip about it by non-subject matter experts and not about how to edit and make better the article. So I think that ship has sailed. — hako9 (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Times of India: The court also criticised Wikipedia for potentially interfering with sub-judice matters through its dedicated page on the case. "Who is the person in charge? Call him here. He can't be interfering with a sub-judice proceeding. He can't put the fear of God in the single judge," the bench stated. There seems to be several things they don't like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant and doesn't follow what you said earlier. — hako9 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes it does. But like you said, meta, not about improving the article at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Btw, on "threatened" I think we should make sure we're following the wording in cited WP:RS here. WP:BLP and all that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
In the order, Justices Manmohan and Gedela take objection to Wikipedia describing the criticism of the Judge's threat by Shah and others. Not to Wikipedia mentioning J. Chawla's threat in itself. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
By "threatened" I meant in wording like "The judge in the case, Justice Navin Chawla, has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia". At least some sources [9][10] use "warned/cautioned" etc. I don't expect any word-changes on this to improve the court's mood, but it might be the thing to do anyway, MOS:SAID might be relevant here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee, do you have a view on that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
No strong opinion. I think we could word it anywhere between
The judge has threatened to order the government to shut down Wikipedia in India.
to
The judge has warned WMF that he will ask the government to shut down Wikipedia in India.
Either one is supported by the sources, and I'm no expert in legal matters. Valereee (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The new article about Chawla says
Chawla warned that the court might ask the government to block Wikipedia in India.[1] Valereee (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's because I edited it so:[11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
hahaha...well, I have no objection to bending over backwards to make this as neutral as we possibly can, so toning down the language is fine by me. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
And congrats on the DYK! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I nom'd it before the court had apoplexy. I probably wouldn't have nom'd at all except it seemed so interesting to me personally. I'm kind of dying to see how interesting readers find it. Valereee (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
It's absolutely a mix in sources, for example the recent Scroll [12] has "Courts are also sufficiently empowered under the Information Technology Act to order the removal of the Wikipedia page on the defamation suit – as the court did on Wednesday – or block Wikipedia’s operations in India altogether, as Chawla threatened." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I think if it's an absolute mix, we should use the least hyperbolic language? Valereee (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Just filed a RTI with the goverment of India to know whether they consider Wikipedia as an intermediary as per the IT act of 2021. ZandraBlaese (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
As in Right to Information Act, 2005? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
"Warned" might be as good a pick as any? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm good with warned. What about ordering vs. asking the government to block? Valereee (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Ordering seems the best option, as it would be a court order that could shut Wikipedia down in India from what I can tell. CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
 Done w/re:warned. But I feel like now the wording is a bit awkward in both places. Can anyone make it better? Valereee (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order". The Hindu. 5 September 2024. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

More critiques

Multiple lawyers. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Added to the article. The lead needs to be redrafted. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it needs to be redrafted. Additionally, better sources should be considered. The current sources focus too much on 'censorship of free speech,' but Wikipedia isn't designed as a platform for 'free speech.' Instead, we should seek sources that align more closely with the concept of a 'threat to the flow of information,' which is controlled by top-tier authorities—namely, the reliable sources selected through consensus by Wikipedia’s senior editors and administrators. It would be more accurate if we want to stay genuine; otherwise, bashing the country's judiciary is an age-old tactic. However, disclosing any editor information would be madness and would damage Wikipedia’s reputation. Many editors and administrators would stop contributing, and that must never happen. It would break my heart if Wikipedia were banned in India. I hope some middle ground can be reached, but whatever happens, I will accept it as niyati. DangalOh (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@DangalOh, if you can find those sources, have at it! Valereee (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
We're in a very news-y phase atm, as time passes, sources might appear with more overview/distance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Let us not forget that Wikimedia has previously released the IP addresses of editors to a plaintiff (Video_Professor#Video_Professor_lawsuit) although that was in response to a subpoena issued by an American court. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Woah! DangalOh (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Huh, the source checks out:[13]. Well, that was sometime ago, but it sure is interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
That is really interesting...yeah, 2007, but still. That needs to be noted at the WP:VPWMF discussion. Valereee (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
"American court" being the operative word. — hako9 (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Don't see this used,dated but maybe additional context: Hunt, Pete (September 23, 2024). "Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia?". The Diplomat. fiveby(zero) 17:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
That is at ProQuest 3108034368 in case you get pay-walled at The Diplomat. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

ANI versus Wikipedia: What is at stake? from Bar and Bench. Noting that this is one of a few, like LiveLaw, what-seems-to-be Indian legal-news websites that pop up when I search google/news. It looks ok on the face of it[14], but I'm not sure of their RS-ness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I'm always a little unsure with sources I'm not familiar with that are also redlinks, but Bar and Bench has editorial oversight, and the writing doesn't seem sensational. That particular piece has some information that could go into the background section. It mentions WMF's transparency reports and says that WMF has granted requests for user data seldom, and never granted one from India. Valereee (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I have the impression that practically all lawyers in India, at least at the High Court level, subscribe to Bar and Bench. So, I would regard it as authentic. Live Law used to be free, at least for current news, but they have recently paywalled it. It is also respectable, but the writing quality is not as good as Bar and Bench. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering if we needed an article on BandB, but it's difficult -- for so many media organizations, most of what comes up on google search is articles by the organization. Same problem with writers. Valereee (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Both pass WP:UBO.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
I thought that bit was interesting, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "How two websites have transformed the way India is reading about courts – and understanding the law". Scroll.in.
  2. ^ "'Notice' asks women lawyers not to fix their hair in court; no such directive received, says Pune bar body". The Indian Express.
  3. ^ "Pegasus row: India's top court orders probe into snooping allegations". BBC.
  4. ^ "India court asks if Nuh demolitions were 'an exercise of ethnic cleansing'". Al Jazeera.
  5. ^ "Hindu-Muslim Marriage Invalid Under Muslim Personal Law: Madhya Pradesh HC". The Wire (India).
  6. ^ "Live Law celebrates ten years of comprehensive legal reporting in India". The News Minute.

NOT A FORUM

Per policy, this t/p is NOT a forum to discuss the merits of the case or WMF's response to it or the workings of Indian Judiciary or anything that has no tangible relation to improving our article. Such discussions are (perhaps) indeed necessary but they are already happening elsewhere. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The ongoing discussions about the case require a broader examination to enhance the article. We should avoid limiting the discussion to policy guidelines, as this could stifle the contributions of other editors who may want to share their opinions on the talk page. Wikipedia's open-source nature allows anyone to edit/discuss and imposing such restrictions would contradict this principle. ZandraBlaese (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
If you have suggestions to improve the article, please propose them here. If you wish to propos policy changes (say, "Wikipedia articles ought not to be created about Indian legal affairs"), please approach WP:VPP. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove word threatened

Being discussed in above section, and the wording has been changed. Collapsing this (for the third time) before editor talks themselves into a block.

The judge in the case, Justice Navin Chawla, has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country.

Judges dont threaten. They pass order. Also, this word is not mentioned in the sources. ZandraBlaese (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@ZandraBlaese Actually, the word "threat" and "threatened" are used in sources 7 and 23. Please see the second paragraph of Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation#Proceedings. CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The word is only used in The Hindu. Could not be used in wikivoice. ZandraBlaese (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Other 32+ sources didnt used the word "Threatened" Also, its against BLP for Judge Navin Chawla ZandraBlaese (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Your honour is watching this page ZandraBlaese (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
And you know this how...? Valereee (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure he is, feel free to tell him to pop by and say hello. CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying you think we'd have to say "According to The Hindu, Chawla "threatened" to..." in order to use the word threatened? Valereee (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@ZandraBlaese, I just noticed you already had posted in the earlier section where we've already been discussing this for days. Please take this up there. I'm closing this one so we aren't talking in two places about the same thing. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not discussed anywhere the removal of the word "threatened" from the lead. This is premature closing of the discussion, reverting for further discussion. ZandraBlaese (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn't, but we're already discussing this exact issue somewhere else. We don't need to discuss it in two places, as that's a waste of your time and mine. It's also moot, as in that discussion we made a decision, which has already been implemented. Valereee (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Premature closure of discussion

I started a conversation on the top of this article about taking out the word 'threatened' from the introduction. But two admins shut down the discussion before I could explain my reasons in detail. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be open to anyone's edits, but this experience makes me wonder if that's really true. It feels like Wikipedia isn't being open to all, so I'm asking an admin to step in and help. ZandraBlaese (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue you had has already been solved and was already being discussed in the WP:AFD section. Nobody's trying to prevent discussion, all the WP:UNINVOLVED user Black Kite and Valeree were doing is preventing needless duplicate discussions. CommissarDoggoTalk? 12:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
What was the conclusion? ZandraBlaese (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
You are becoming disruptive here. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
That the wording was changed, see here. CommissarDoggoTalk? 12:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
This is disruption!!! Next either you will block me or lock this page for further edits by 99% of non-extended confirmrd editors. Thats why judges found wikipedia a good intermediaries controlled by a group of handful of editors.
I would rest myself before I could further disrupt. ZandraBlaese (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, can you clarify "I would rest myself before I could further disrupt." I'm not following.
Read the current discussions before you start a new one; it's quite likely anything you want to discuss is already being discussed. If it's already being discussed somewhere, post there. If it isn't, then start a new discussion. And if someone closes a discussion you've started, read the reason why. If you don't understand it, go to their talk page and ask for clarification. Valereee (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you may have been misled. There are 72,348 extended confirmed editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
What does "good intermediaries" mean? Judge? Doug Weller talk 16:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@ZandraBlaese You said on your talk page you were asking here for an Admin to come in and help. We deal with conduct when acting as Admins. I doubt a new Admin will notice this and participate. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Someone can use this source to flesh the section on defamation:

Available via TWL. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Civil defamation law is uniquely suited to be pressed in service of SLAPP. There are two reasons for this. First, standards and burdens of proof: Indian law is based on the common law of defamation, where to prove a prima facie case, the plaintiff need only show that the impugned statement has been 'published' (made to a person other than the plaintiff and the defendant), that it refers to him, and that it is 'defamatory'—that is, that it tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
— Bhatia (2016; p. )

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree, this would be very useful to add. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources in the last six months

This article is really outdated! I'm going to look for recent sources to update it with.

jlwoodwa (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

For bar and bench, try using ghost archive for the older articles. – robertsky (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Not only is the article currently outdated, at present it also conflates distinct legal developments about this case. ANI’s defamation lawsuit against Wikimedia is still ongoing. Notice was issued yesterday for it by High Court- https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/second-round-of-ani-vs-wikipedia-begins-before-delhi-high-court
The takedown order concerning this article was addressed through a separate appellate proceeding and ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court of India.
The article would benefit from a clearer and more accurate chronology that distinguishes between the underlying defamation suit, its reversal by the Supreme Court in April and the takedown litigation about this article. 38.99.6.253 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I have separated the proceedings into different sections if that helps. – robertsky (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jlwoodwa meta has a timeline tracker with references, apparently! meta:Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. – robertsky (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the suit's section delves a lot into the details which may not be required. Its like a factual narration. Should it be revised to make it shorter and more crisp? 164.152.142.245 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow!

Whoa! Someone pinged me, can't remember who but thank you, this is so cool to see live again! Valereee (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is epiku!! - Sebbog13 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
One of the miracles of the year, an answer to our prayers. Let this be one of the brightest ever days for our community! 🥳
Given how long we waited for this article's return, I may as well edit here for a bit. Happy there's been quick expansion and updates here! I wonder why Navin Chawla does not need an article, though. Carlinal (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navin Chawla (judge). I don't know if the source-situation has changed, but we can redirect to Delhi_High_Court#Permanent_judges. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
First edit was 3 minutes after the unprotection. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
And there is one more language version now (Chinese was never taken down, funnily enough). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
And we have Arabic, Come on France! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I bet the French ain't quite ready to publish an article on this kind of lawsuit-inviting subject just yet :P Carlinal (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
IIRC, they had one but deleted it per the court thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
it's available in 6 languages now lol, including French 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station has 42 + English, though ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
WE WIN THESE!!! Hoping the main case goes the same way. Toadspike [Talk] 09:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Incredible to see this article restored, today is a good day. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
We are SO BACK! This is awesome. Great work by Wikimedia, hope to never see this happen again. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Locking and restoration process

If anyone wants to see the Wikipedia article locking process, check these:

On 21 October 2025 the Wikimedia Foundation locked this article using the official user account user:WMFOffice.

On 9 May 2025 the Wikimedia Foundation restored the article.

The way that the Wikimedia Foundation communicated the restoration of the article was simply by removing the digital lock. There was not an announcement or communication to anyone. Editors who had this article on their watchlist got an alert to the change.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry [15][16] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
More restorations in The Signpost
Screenshot of mirror on archive.today

I requested and received restoration of a deleted image and un-suppression of WP:OVERSIGHTed content which I attempted to publish in The Signpost article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-11-06/Technology_report.

The suppressed content was a screenshot of the mirrored Wikipedia article in the archive.today repository, and the link to that article from The Signpost.

The deletion was tolerable considering that this was a legal issue about which the limits were not known. When I wrote that article, I did not feel that I was transgressing boundaries. I would like it known that as a collective, Wikipedia community administrators and oversighters err to caution, and it was burdensome on me as a journalist to wonder what limits of reporting I should observe. I am glad that we reported what we did, because there were some in the wiki community who felt that the stories in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2024-11-06 issue went too far, and that The Signpost and the wiki community should agree to report less than what we did.

It could be worthwhile to reflect on this case to consider what would happen if the Wikipedia community were under more intense pressure to censor more information. Even without direction from the Wikimedia Foundation or a legal request, there are going to be differing opinions in the wiki editorial community about how much content to share or withhold. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation/Archive_1&oldid=1293254830"