| Revision as of 20:04, 28 October 2024 editKautilya3 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,823 edits →Lead paragraph gone: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:07, 28 October 2024 edit undoDangalOh (talk | contribs)385 edits →A source that is not used: ReplyTags: Reverted ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 430: | Line 430: | ||
| ::: Oh, I don't know about TV, but print media rarely use ANI news feeds. And, when they do, they often print them verbatim, so that we know who wrote them. But I am recently discovering that PTI just as bad, but it least attributes its information to government sources. ANI, on the other hand, makes it look like it knows it to be a fact. These problems were rampant during the ]. -- ] (]) 19:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | ::: Oh, I don't know about TV, but print media rarely use ANI news feeds. And, when they do, they often print them verbatim, so that we know who wrote them. But I am recently discovering that PTI just as bad, but it least attributes its information to government sources. ANI, on the other hand, makes it look like it knows it to be a fact. These problems were rampant during the ]. -- ] (]) 19:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::: So I am fully sympathetic to the supposed "inadvertent errors and oversights" that magically align with the government's interests. -- ] (]) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | ::: So I am fully sympathetic to the supposed "inadvertent errors and oversights" that magically align with the government's interests. -- ] (]) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :I don’t know why I am even bothering to comment, but this is ridiculous. The World Press Freedom Index, which ranks even Taliban-controlled Afghanistan above India in terms of press freedom, is not motivated? Should we trust what the top boss says? And only some of the mainstream media in India is not free? All other outlets, like The Hindu, Alt News, and The Caravan, etc., are supposedly free from the dictatorship of Modi? I was just remembering the time when even a cartoonist who dared to make caricatures of Sonia Gandhi was jailed, and his website was shut down for good. Nowadays, you see caricatures of Modi, Amit Shah, etc., almost daily, but I have never seen any fascist moves by them. Of course, if your definition of fascism is controlling radical elements by the language they understand, and that too as a last resort, then wait till someone like me gets into power. You will miss Modi. I can criticize Modi, his policies, and his way of working, etc., right here while sitting in India, and nothing will happen to me. People do that day and night anyway. I truly wish India were as fascist and non-democratic as you want to showcase it to the world. So many problems would just evaporate. Beh! But why am I again even bothering with nonsensopedia? Good day to all. ] (]) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Lead paragraph gone == | == Lead paragraph gone == | ||
Revision as of 20:07, 28 October 2024
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
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.
During hearing the Judge mentioned: "I will impose contempt...It is not a question of Defendant No 1 not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Misplaced Pages...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
- Hi TheKunda, please note that legal threats are prohibited on Misplaced Pages. An article subject suing the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), by itself, is not an adequate reason for Misplaced Pages editors to delete article content. Because Misplaced Pages is not censored, "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors to enforce the demands of litigants – that would be a violation of Misplaced Pages's policy against advocacy. Contested article content is only removed when doing so would bring the article into stronger compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.BBC (RSP entry), The Caravan, and Alt News are considered reliable sources on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
Gentle reminder ! JSutherland (WMF) TheKunda (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock- TheKunda, read Section 230 and understand that WMF staff will not edit the content of Misplaced Pages. Cabayi (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, Misplaced Pages 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)
- TheKunda, read Section 230 and understand that WMF staff will not edit the content of Misplaced Pages. Cabayi (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
Why dont somebody delete the offending part ? Vivaxe (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- What's offensive to you maybe perfectly acceptable to others. Read WP:NOTCENSORED. And[REDACTED] works on consensus. — hako9 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
You cannot say in public...
I can actually. — hako9 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Several somebodies have, but atm the article has a WP:BLUELOCK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- If it is locked it means[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)
- The Indian court has no jurisdiction over Misplaced Pages other than the ability to block the website in India. The court seems incapable of understanding that Misplaced Pages 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)
- What if the court is blocking Misplaced Pages in India ? Vivaxe (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- That would be unfortunate, but Misplaced Pages will continue. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Then we write about it at Censorship of Misplaced Pages, and probably start a Block of Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. Vivaxe (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- What if the court is blocking Misplaced Pages in India ? Vivaxe (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Silence is better than words. Especially when one doesn't know what they are talking about. — hako9 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages on the claim that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Vivaxe (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weeeell... Sure, that was in 2020, but politicians remember. A vicious culture war is tearing through Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- Why are you threatening Misplaced Pages editors here? We are editors, not a governing body of Misplaced Pages and whatever the decision your court or government takes, won't harm us. Hu741f4 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I only said that WP:BLUELOCK be removed since Misplaced Pages 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)
- A bluelock does not in any way represent an approval of the content by "Misplaced Pages" 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)
- I only said that WP:BLUELOCK be removed since Misplaced Pages 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)
- Why are you threatening Misplaced Pages editors here? We are editors, not a governing body of Misplaced Pages and whatever the decision your court or government takes, won't harm us. Hu741f4 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Weeeell... Sure, that was in 2020, but politicians remember. A vicious culture war is tearing through Misplaced Pages 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)
- @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)
- The Indian court has no jurisdiction over Misplaced Pages other than the ability to block the website in India. The court seems incapable of understanding that Misplaced Pages 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)
- If it is locked it means[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)
An uninvolved editor needs to collapse and archive this mess WP:TPG. — hako9 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
- I really, really think it's a bad idea to remove the ECP, for many reasons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics applies to this page and the respective protection is a normal procedure. (CC) Tbhotch 18:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- "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)
- Well, I read from this source that “Regarding Asian News International’s claim that its page was not editable, Wikimedia explained that ... Experienced editors can still improve the article following Misplaced Pages’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)
- 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)
- All I know is that I got two reverts 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)
- No permission needed. But add tags that serve a purpose. Read the template documentation and relevant policies. Otherwise it's just WP:Tag bombing. I won't revert a second time if you feel a tag is necessary. — hako9 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. FYI I did read the documentation and do think the tags are necessary. I won’t act against 1RR for this C/T though ... Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- No permission needed. But add tags that serve a purpose. Read the template documentation and relevant policies. Otherwise it's just WP:Tag bombing. I won't revert a second time if you feel a tag is necessary. — hako9 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- All I know is that I got two reverts 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)
- Replying to myself ... hmm, the WMF is probably wrong. With all those “contentious topic designation”, “ECP”, etc. improving the article is just too difficult, if not impossible. You will got reverts, warnings, within hours, and you are aware of WP:1RR, and WP:BOLD is always a lie to children. And, you’d better give up <and ... shut up; before you are *forced* to> :-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Lawsuit article removed
Gone - Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation
Anyone is invited to edit Wikidata at Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (Q130603111)
I invite wiki editors to assist with journalistic reporting of this story in The Signpost, which is the newsletter for and by Misplaced Pages editors. Please contribute at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. If you have questions about joining the journalism, then check in at WP:NEWSROOM. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that "In the meantime, ANI is pressing its application for takedown of the page, which was heard today by Justice Prasad." (from today). My reading is that "the page" here refers to this WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- The likelihood that this actually happens seems pretty low though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I thought about the case-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The likelihood that this actually happens seems pretty low though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, to say the court proceedings are hilarious would be an understatement. The powertripping
unclesunkils have bought into their own delusions that milords and their lords have any authority over wiki just like they have had on others for a decade in this usurped dance of democracy. The likelihood of wiki taking down or censoring this article is null, and i doubt the judges would pass any judgement that doesn't favour ANI. So, the chances of wiki just getting blocked or restricted here are fair. - What's your stance on my previous comment to remove the wording "alleged/accused" for the agency serving as propaganda/mouthpiece for the government? This is not much of an accusation when it is so evident and when they have repeatedly admitted to it in interviews. Do you think this has some significance and warrants a discussion?
Lunar-akaunto／talk 19:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)- @Lunar-akaunto, I'd need to see that 'admitting to it in interviews' source. Otherwise, no, I think we need to take it out of wikivoice and attribute wherever appropriate. If we have nothing reasonable to attribute it to, we remove. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, to say the court proceedings are hilarious would be an understatement. The powertripping
- Apologies, i have not been able to be very active out here lately. I'm also out right now, but I'll try my best to link the appropriate sources by tomorrow upon verifying. Also, maybe my wording was not very accurate, "admitting", as in not exactly outrightly saying it but bordering on it times and times again. The interviews are damn long, so I'll need to speedrun through them. Uh, let's discuss this further once i do post it by tomorrow.
Lunar-akaunto／talk 17:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, i have not been able to be very active out here lately. I'm also out right now, but I'll try my best to link the appropriate sources by tomorrow upon verifying. Also, maybe my wording was not very accurate, "admitting", as in not exactly outrightly saying it but bordering on it times and times again. The interviews are damn long, so I'll need to speedrun through them. Uh, let's discuss this further once i do post it by tomorrow.
References
- "what is an unkil". Retrieved 2024-10-27.
The current litigation section
Asian_News_International#Litigation is now almost entirely WMF/WP, and IMO it has swelled out of WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION. There is of course a reason for this, an informal merge seems to have occurred, but it's still not right for this article. We should look into condensing the WP-stuff. Apart from the bits of WP:NPOV, "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." is also policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't care about Indian Courts but the content, as it stood prior to my revert, violated core content policies, the foremost among them, being DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- That looks about right to me. Could have used an edit summary though. I have some hope that it's generally helpful on several levels if we strive to make this a good article from the WP-pov. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
improving
I think we need to do everything we can to make sure this article is as good as we can make it. I've put a few tags in the lede, I think it's a not-bad idea to attribute there. It's one thing to say they did something. It's another to say someone else said they did something. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Then, do it. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've tried to do this but was reverted (I reverted back per WP:ONUS) I think the stuff about the alleged mistreatment of employees and claims of promoting misinformation is better discussed in the body, as otherwise the lead seems unduly focused on shoving as much negative content in the lead as possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the edits Hemi made. The lead was mostly negative and completely unattributed. I think we need to attribute. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Attributions and significant pruning is unwarranted. There are just too many reliable sources that have called out the fake news and disinformation operations from this agency. We cannot list them all on the lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- IMO we don't have to list them all. Just the best ones. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Attributions and significant pruning is unwarranted. There are just too many reliable sources that have called out the fake news and disinformation operations from this agency. We cannot list them all on the lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the edits Hemi made. The lead was mostly negative and completely unattributed. I think we need to attribute. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, Ratnahastin, the fact something hasn't been attributed in the lead isn't a reason not to attribute it when well-intentioned experienced editors are actively discussing exactly that. Consensus can change.
- Please, all, let's stop with the edit warring. There are clearly multiple editors who believe this content needs attribution, based on additions of tags and/or additions of that attribution. Come in here and discuss. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Kindly see the section Asian News International#Content and the range of sources that have provided the coverage confirming their rampant fake news peddling. Attribution would only make it seem as if we are treating this to be an uncommon belief when it is a widely accepted fact that ANI is regularly spreading fake news. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah agree with @Ratnahastin! Baqi:) (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that if we attribute, we're somehow indicating it's an uncommon belief, but I have no objection to, say, "The BBC and multiple others have" said whatever. Valereee (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee, This is exactly the point. If the ANI media team had understood the basic fact that every word in the article is backed by references, they wouldn’t have filed a case in court. Baqi:) (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that irrelevant? Half our lead is unattributed negative content. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee, This is exactly the point. If the ANI media team had understood the basic fact that every word in the article is backed by references, they wouldn’t have filed a case in court. Baqi:) (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- By "range of sources" you mean two investigative sources that basically nobody can read because they are behind a very tight paywall, along with a handful of factchecks of particular erroneous reports? ANI clearly has serious issues which deserve to be discussed in the lead, but by making the lead so negative it reads like a polemical attack, not a neutral encyclopedic summary. Going by your standards we may as well just call ANI a fake news website in the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- ANI's issues are being dealt with by the Delhi High Court. Unless the court passes an order, they are not our concern. Please refrain from bringing this up again. You are welcome to raise objections based on Misplaced Pages policies. And, there is no policy that says paywalled sources are somehow inferior sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not objecting to the sources because they are behind a paywall, they're obviously fine per WP:SOURCEACCESS, I'm just saying that other editors without access to the sources can't comment on whether or not the sources are being fairly represented (that being said, I have no reason to believe they are being misrepresented). I'm not looking to whitewash ANI, just representing them fairly and accurately. I think focusing on ANI quoting the fake sources associated with the Srivastava group is a more effective sentence in the lead rather than suggesting that they promote misinformation based on a handful of fact checks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia I will email you a copy of the Caravan article. I do not have access to the other source, though. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not objecting to the sources because they are behind a paywall, they're obviously fine per WP:SOURCEACCESS, I'm just saying that other editors without access to the sources can't comment on whether or not the sources are being fairly represented (that being said, I have no reason to believe they are being misrepresented). I'm not looking to whitewash ANI, just representing them fairly and accurately. I think focusing on ANI quoting the fake sources associated with the Srivastava group is a more effective sentence in the lead rather than suggesting that they promote misinformation based on a handful of fact checks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- ANI's issues are being dealt with by the Delhi High Court. Unless the court passes an order, they are not our concern. Please refrain from bringing this up again. You are welcome to raise objections based on Misplaced Pages policies. And, there is no policy that says paywalled sources are somehow inferior sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Kindly see the section Asian News International#Content and the range of sources that have provided the coverage confirming their rampant fake news peddling. Attribution would only make it seem as if we are treating this to be an uncommon belief when it is a widely accepted fact that ANI is regularly spreading fake news. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to do this but was reverted
- I did not revert you but why that might have been the case? Three reliable sources—BBC, Politico, and The Diplomat—reiterate that ANI had amplified a vast network of fake news websites spreading pro-government and anti-Pakistan propaganda but you, for reasons unknown (and unjustifiable), thought of attributing it to BBC News alone. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)- If the problem is that not enough sources are being attributed, I have no objection to attributing it to more. Valereee (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Or we can add a footnote mentioning all sources? GrabUp - Talk 17:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Works for me to prevent long lists of sources in the lead, but I still think we need to attribute in the lead. Valereee (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- This was a reply to Hemiauchenia but in any case, Ymblanter has locked the page. So, we have ample time to discuss at the t/p and wordsmith the lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam, in this edit you removed "has been accused of amplifying" and replaced it with "has amplified", placing it into wikivoice. I think that's a problem, whether or not the BBC is mentioned. Valereee (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do not think an attribution is needed; the same charges have been detailed by Al Jazeera (1), Le Monde (2) and others. How many sources do you wish to attribute, a dozen? The attributions to The Ken and The Caravan need to stay; not these.In any case, if you are firmly against wikivoice, go ahead with the attribution (you have my consent to edit through the protection); maybe, "BBC, Politico, and other media organizations ..." works ? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but again, whether or not this needs attribution, you've placed the statement into wikivoice by changing from "has been accused of amplifying" to "has amplified". Valereee (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that wasn't my intention; can you please restore to "has been accused of amplifying"? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm really kind of loathe to do that. When an admin places a full protection, they expect any admin who is involved to voluntarily comply. Lemme see if I can catch SFR below. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also somewhat believe that attribution is a good idea. If this had been attributed before ANI went to court, the court might not have targeted Misplaced Pages. After seeing that Misplaced Pages simply says ‘according to BBC’ or ‘The Diplomat report,’ the court might have better understood that Misplaced Pages did not make the claim on its own, and eventually, ANI would have to go after The Caravan, BBC, or The Diplomat, which are the actual sources of these claims. GrabUp - Talk 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- We are not here to compensate with any court. If someone cannot understand the wording and sourcing standard of Wiki then it is their own fault. Dympies (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that wasn't my intention; can you please restore to "has been accused of amplifying"? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but again, whether or not this needs attribution, you've placed the statement into wikivoice by changing from "has been accused of amplifying" to "has amplified". Valereee (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see this is as an issue. Whether or not ANI is a mouthpiece/propaganda outlet of the Indian government/BJP is somewhat subjective assertion and should be attributed, but there's no real doubt that ANI did promogulate these sites and that they are indeed fake. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do not think an attribution is needed; the same charges have been detailed by Al Jazeera (1), Le Monde (2) and others. How many sources do you wish to attribute, a dozen? The attributions to The Ken and The Caravan need to stay; not these.In any case, if you are firmly against wikivoice, go ahead with the attribution (you have my consent to edit through the protection); maybe, "BBC, Politico, and other media organizations ..." works ? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam, in this edit you removed "has been accused of amplifying" and replaced it with "has amplified", placing it into wikivoice. I think that's a problem, whether or not the BBC is mentioned. Valereee (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Or we can add a footnote mentioning all sources? GrabUp - Talk 17:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- If the problem is that not enough sources are being attributed, I have no objection to attributing it to more. Valereee (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- No comment on the wikivoice over other allegations, but regarding the reportage of misinformation, why do that? Has the agency not done that? On the contrary, they have at times notoriously apologised for doing it.
Lunar-akaunto／talk 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)- By this standard, has The New York Times has "consistently reported misinformation" because of its reporting on the Holodomor and the whole Caliphate (podcast) debacle, among others? I'm not saying that the ANI isn't sloppy or hasn't deliberately reported misinformation at times, but we need a source that explicitly says so, rather than just a WP:SYNTH based on multiple factchecks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Warning to the editors
CLOSED I'm closing this to encourage people to discuss at WikiProject India or at Village Pump WMF. This is not a forum. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)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.
No, this is not a legal threat by me.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/wikipedia-user-details-delhi-high-court-ani
Misplaced Pages has agreed to disclose to the Indian Court in a sealed cover the basic subscriber information (BSI) details about users who wrote/ edited the page about news agency ANI. This might mean that Misplaced Pages will likely disclose editor's IP addresses of the editors that edited here.
Honestly I am disappointed at Misplaced Pages failing to protect the identity of its editors. Misplaced Pages forbids VPN access that can protect editors, while at the same time refusing to protect editors.
While most of the editors might be outside the jurisdiction of the Indian courts, what about those that are in India? Hopefully WMF have answers to that question. If not, this will be a chilling effect where editors won't edit the "tough things" anymore. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is truly disappointing. The Wikimedia Foundation is failing its editors, compromising their 'freedom of expression.' While it's well-known that Indian courts can be biased, the Foundation also had a responsibility to protect its editors.
- Recently, in an offline meeting, a representative from Wikimedia India was present. When I asked her about the ANI vs. Misplaced Pages case, she stated, "Misplaced Pages itself does not have information about editors." However, now the Foundation is providing editor information to the court. This situation is genuinely concerning. Baqi:) (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Edit request
Admin only, wtf? The lede sentence states "Asian News International (ANI) is an Indian news agency that offers syndicated multimedia news feed to news bureaus in India", this is grammatically incorrect. Is there one news feed, or multiple. It either needs to say "offers a syndicated news feed", or "offers syndicated news feeds"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish often responds to edit requests and is an admin. SFR, I'm sorry to ping you, but I'm loathe to respond to these as I'm just an editor here. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Went with "feeds". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 28 October 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Partially undo this edit of mine — replace "ANI has amplified a vast network ..." with "ANI has been accused of amplifying a vast network ..." I didn't mean to change that; thanks to Valereee for pointing it out! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: judging by the discussion at #improving, this would be a controversial change. If consensus develops for a change, please re-request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers, it's not controversial. TB made the edit without realizing they were changing the meaning, and I am loathe to edit through the protection even with their blessing. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I may be misunderstanding comments by Ratnahastin and Jannatulbaqi. When they say they oppose attribution, is that not on objection to the change under consideration here? Counting TB (at least temporarily) in the "make the change" column, it's borderline whether there's consensus for the change. A couple more reasoned voices would tip it over for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- They're opposing attribution. What TB didn't intend to do was change "has been accused of amplifying" to "has amplified". They were objecting to including 'by the BBC' and made a bigger edit than they realized, and now the statement is in wikivoice, which they didn't intend. I know, clear as mud, right? But basically if you just change "has amplified" back to "has been accused of amplifying" I don't think the other editors are objecting to that. Valereee (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Between this analysis and the new comments, I'm seeing enough to make the change. Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Between this analysis and the new comments, I'm seeing enough to make the change.
- They're opposing attribution. What TB didn't intend to do was change "has been accused of amplifying" to "has amplified". They were objecting to including 'by the BBC' and made a bigger edit than they realized, and now the statement is in wikivoice, which they didn't intend. I know, clear as mud, right? But basically if you just change "has amplified" back to "has been accused of amplifying" I don't think the other editors are objecting to that. Valereee (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I may be misunderstanding comments by Ratnahastin and Jannatulbaqi. When they say they oppose attribution, is that not on objection to the change under consideration here? Counting TB (at least temporarily) in the "make the change" column, it's borderline whether there's consensus for the change. A couple more reasoned voices would tip it over for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers, it's not controversial. TB made the edit without realizing they were changing the meaning, and I am loathe to edit through the protection even with their blessing. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
- @Firefangledfeathers: You should restore this version. Hemiauchenia made 2 reverts to undo the long term stable version despite the ongoing discussion above. Dympies (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- No admin is going to restore any preferred version based on the current version being the "wrong version". Valereee (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, please see WP:WRONGVERSION Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- This thread is for gaining consensus regarding which version was the correct one. Obviously the one before your recent changes was the correct one. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not really. I highly recommend not focusing on "which version was the correct one", when it's quicker and more productive on "which version is better moving forward". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- For now, you should change "Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company" back to "Investigations into the company". It has also been agreed on the section above that no attributions are needed here. Dympies (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, I deem that attribution to be good. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- For now, you should change "Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company" back to "Investigations into the company". It has also been agreed on the section above that no attributions are needed here. Dympies (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not really. I highly recommend not focusing on "which version was the correct one", when it's quicker and more productive on "which version is better moving forward". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- This thread is for gaining consensus regarding which version was the correct one. Obviously the one before your recent changes was the correct one. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, please see WP:WRONGVERSION Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- No admin is going to restore any preferred version based on the current version being the "wrong version". Valereee (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
A source that is not used
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. While ANI hasn’t directly addressed the allegations, its editor Smita Prakash, in a tweet on 11 December, accused “Pakistan and its proxies” of damaging ANI’s credibility “by hurling wild accusations of fake news”. Smita is Prem Prakash’s daughter-in-law, and is married to Sanjiv Prakash, managing director of the agency.
There do seem to have been “oversights”. In July, only days after it reported that there were no Chinese troops on the Indian side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the agency released another report saying China was refusing to pull out its 40,000 troops in “front and depth areas”. There was “not even an apology” for putting out a contradictory report earlier, tweeted defence expert Ajai Shukla, a retired colonel from the Indian Army. The agency, he added, was “India’s largest, but worst-run, sarkari mouthpiece”.
But ANI, which registered as a news agency in the mid-1990s, didn’t always attract such criticism ... n recent years, ANI's journalism has often attracted charges of being partisan towards the BJP ...
After the 2014 election, and ahead of the 2019 election campaign, Modi gave two press interviews to ANI’s editor Smita Prakash, the most he's given to any media organization. "I am holding fast to my desire to be as neutral as possible in the interview," she wrote in a behind-the-scenes account of the first interview. "My questions are beyond the riots of 2002, beyond Hindutva and beyond hate speeches." The second interview, aired on 1 January 2019, was criticised for her unwillingness to persist with hard questions, even on issues such as the alleged Rafale fighter jet scam ...
Prakash’s book has an episode from the 1975 Emergency that may illustrate the comparison. While he was reporting in the field once, some people stopped Prakash’s car near a gurudwara in Delhi. There were rumours of a lathi-charge at a demonstration nearby and people wanted to know if it was true. Before Prakash could answer, a Sikh man interrupted and addressed the crowd: "Why are you asking them questions? Can’t you tell they are journalists? They are not allowed to speak." The sentiment still resonates.
— Mint (newspaper) https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/ideas/prem-prakash-ani-and-the-perils-of-access-journalism-111607855620941.html
As is evident, the writer of the article — currently at NPR — is accusing ANI of being brazenly partisan to BJP; additionally, he notes something of an institutional history in the regard, highlighting the "considerable bonhomie" between Prem Prakash and "the people he was to hold accountable as a journalist".
So, contrary to what Hemiauchenia believes in good faith, the criticisms levelled at ANI are not limited to the cited sources and I can probably find others. One also needs to remember that ANI provides news-feeds to virtually every MSM in India and notwithstanding India's sharp decline in press freedom, we cannot really expect those organizations to bite the (metaphorical) hand that feeds them!
I look forward to seeing about how @Valereee and others feel about including this source. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a good source to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia So, do we write "Investigations by The Caravan, The Ken, and The Mint ..."? (This might seem to be in jest but isn't.) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Mint doesn't really seem to have done a deep investigation into the issue, more just bog-standard reporting. I would support "reporting by The Cavaran, The Ken and Mint" instead. Also, it's probably worth noting at least in the body that ANI has never properly addressed the fake news allegations and has declined to comment when specifically confronted about it (which is mentioned in the Mint piece). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia So, do we write "Investigations by The Caravan, The Ken, and The Mint ..."? (This might seem to be in jest but isn't.) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- What is MSM? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: Mainstream media. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't know about TV, but print media rarely use ANI news feeds. And, when they do, they often print them verbatim, so that we know who wrote them. But I am recently discovering that PTI just as bad, but it least attributes its information to government sources. ANI, on the other hand, makes it look like it knows it to be a fact. These problems were rampant during the 2023-2024 Manipur violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- So I am fully sympathetic to the supposed "inadvertent errors and oversights" that magically align with the government's interests. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: Mainstream media. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know why I am even bothering to comment, but this is ridiculous. The World Press Freedom Index, which ranks even Taliban-controlled Afghanistan above India in terms of press freedom, is not motivated? Should we trust what the top boss says? And only some of the mainstream media in India is not free? All other outlets, like The Hindu, Alt News, and The Caravan, etc., are supposedly free from the dictatorship of Modi? I was just remembering the time when even a cartoonist who dared to make caricatures of Sonia Gandhi was jailed, and his website was shut down for good. Nowadays, you see caricatures of Modi, Amit Shah, etc., almost daily, but I have never seen any fascist moves by them. Of course, if your definition of fascism is controlling radical elements by the language they understand, and that too as a last resort, then wait till someone like me gets into power. You will miss Modi. I can criticize Modi, his policies, and his way of working, etc., right here while sitting in India, and nothing will happen to me. People do that day and night anyway. I truly wish India were as fascist and non-democratic as you want to showcase it to the world. So many problems would just evaporate. Beh! But why am I again even bothering with nonsensopedia? Good day to all. DangalOh (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Lead paragraph gone
The above discussion is too free-wheeling for me to make sense of what is being talked about. So opening a new one. Hemiauchenia removed this paragraph from the lead:
Critics have also alleged the agency has consistently reported misinformation, has employed video editors to misrepresent media sources, and has quoted sources that do not exist. It has also been accused of favouring revenue output over ill-treated employees.
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
donthi-2019was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- Cite error: The named reference
chaudhuri-2018was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- "Modi Govt's Go-To News Agency ANI 'Quotes Geopolitical Experts, Think Tanks That Don't Exist': Report". The Wire (India). 23 February 2023. Retrieved 19 September 2024.
- Cite error: The named reference
ahluwalia-2018was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
And his explanation for it on the talk page is (other than claiming "ONUS"):
I've tried to do this but was reverted (I reverted back per WP:ONUS) I think the stuff about the alleged mistreatment of employees and claims of promoting misinformation is better discussed in the body, as otherwise the lead seems unduly focused on shoving as much negative content in the lead as possible. (15:04 UTC, 28 October 2024)
So, my questions:
- How do you know that this is "unduly" negative?
- You might argue that employ mistreatment is not lead-worthy but how can you claim that misinformaiton is not lead-worthy?
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of High-importance
- B-Class Delhi articles
- High-importance Delhi articles
- B-Class Delhi articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Delhi articles
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Delhi
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in India
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Misplaced Pages articles
- Low-importance Misplaced Pages articles
- WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English