Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

ANI defamation case

Some of you might know that Asian News International (ANI) is suing Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court for defamation. The first hearing was on 20 August, which doesn't seem to have been covered in the press. Now we learn that the High Court ordered Wikimedia to divulge the identity of the editors within 2 weeks, and when Wikimedia failed to comply, held it in contempt. If anybody knows what happened in the 20-August hearing, please let me know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. What is ANI? There used to be a UNI, or was it UPI, or both? Any connection? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

UPI is American. My bad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the name above and added a wikilink. See also WP:RSPANI.

An earlier article in The Indian Express points out that ANI is treating Wikipedia as a "social media intermediary" (like twitter, for example), which is just a "transmitter" of information. That means that the editors who wrote the content are the original "authors", the real targets that ANI intends to sue. Wikimedia looks like it is out of depth in figuring out the Indian law. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

:) Presumably, these editors have cited sources for said content. What did the court say about the cited authors, especially if they are Indians? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess the case hasn't gotten to that point yet. That is why I am asking, what happened on the 20th August hearing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

On the hearing held on August 20, 2024, in the ANI defamation case against Wikipedia, the following key events took place:

Wikimedia's Appearance: Representatives from Wikimedia appeared in court. ANI contended that Wikipedia had not disputed the involvement of three individuals, who were also defendants in the case, in editing the contentious content.

Court's Directive: The Delhi High Court directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details of the three individuals involved in the case within two weeks. This information was demanded because ANI had accused Wikipedia of defaming them by allowing edits that labeled the news agency as a "propaganda tool" of the Indian government.

ANI's Complaint: ANI reinforced its claim that Wikipedia was permitting defamatory content and sought ₹2 crore in damages along with the removal of the alleged defamatory statements.

Contempt Petition Filed: ANI filed a contempt petition against Wikipedia for not complying with the court’s earlier order to disclose the required information.

In other words : Wikimedia Foundation was ordered to present a representative in court due to their failure to provide the requested subscriber details of individuals involved in editing ANI's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's legal team argued that the platform's content is created and managed by volunteer editors and that they do not interfere directly with edits. However, the court was displeased with Wikipedia's non-compliance and delay in submitting the required information. Justice Navin Chawla warned that continued non-compliance could result in the platform being blocked in India. The words were "I will impose contempt...It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia...Earlier also you people have taken this argument. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India." The court issued a contempt notice to Wikimedia and directed a representative to appear at the next hearing scheduled for October 25, 2024​ DangalOh (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Source please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Information is available through multiple Indian news sources. I just summarised it. However, if you are referring to "the sources" that Wikipedia deems infallible and most reliable, I am not certain. The objective here is not to introduce this material into Wikipedia with citations to further any agenda. The intent was simply to inform. Whether one chooses to believe it or not is not my concern; that responsibility falls on Wikimedia and the editors involved. This issue extends beyond ANI; it affects all Indian news sources that do not align with leftist, globalist, or Islamist ideologies. Funnily enough, ANI is labeled as a propaganda tool for the Indian government, regardless of whether it's the BJP or Congress in power. It's even a further step towards an anti-India bias, not just anti-right wing. Notably, the primary source used to defame ANI was Alt News, run by Mohammed Zubair. Unfortunately, I do not have Alt News reporting on this matter. Whether you choose to accept this information or not is entirely up to you; it is not my concern. If you have any other contradictory information from 'most reliable' sources, then please share or i would request you to at least give some benefit of the doubt. DangalOh (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here is the link to Delhi HC - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new?sno=1&ctype=CS%28OS%29&cno=524&cyear=2024 - Case Type CS(OS) (or CS(OS) - S), Case number - 524, Year - 2024. It was not immediately clear to me who the defendants 2, 3, 4 (WP Admins as stated in the order) are. Does anyone know where to lookup?

Also, direct links to orders: 9 July 2024, 20 August 2024 — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The names of defendants 2, 3, and 4 in the ANI defamation case against Wikipedia were not publicly disclosed in the available reports from August 20, 2024. However, it was noted that these three individuals were involved in making the contested edits on the Wikipedia page of ANI, and they are subject to a court order requiring Wikipedia to disclose their subscriber details. ANI contended that these individuals were not administrators on the platform, which led to the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to reveal their identities within two weeks. DangalOh (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The case was listed yesterday (case history link) but the order is not (yet?) available (link). Is there an update from yesterday? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There has been no specific update on the order from the September 5 hearing that I am aware of as of now. The developments I initially mentioned to Kautilya are the latest updates, especially Justice Navin Chawla's vocal warning. I will keep my eyes and ears open. This situation could seriously escalate. I would personally hate to see Wikipedia get banned in India. India has the largest English-speaking population in the world, especially as a second or third language. A ban could affect access to a valuable source of information for millions, and it would certainly impact Wikipedia’s presence in one of the largest user bases in the world. I don’t know if it will affect Wikipedia Hindi as well. Only time will tell. DangalOh (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

India certainly won't be the first to censor Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but India banning Wikipedia would seriously be impactful. Most of the countries that previously censored Wikipedia are not even English-speaking. We are talking about one of the biggest user bases of Wikipedia here. The impact will be felt if such a scenario occurs.

Unlike other countries that have restricted Wikipedia, India is not only one of the largest contributors in terms of users but also generates a significant amount of content, including in multiple regional languages. This would create a ripple effect, especially on the availability of regional knowledge and the diversity of perspectives online. DangalOh (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI contended that these individuals were not administrators on the platform, which led to the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to reveal their identities within two weeks. I'd be curious to see what the reasoning there was. Why is it relevant whether the editors were administrators or not? jlwoodwa (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the comment in OnManorama?

Since we don't have news coverage of what happened on 20 August (which is itself quite suspicious), the newspapers have been trying to reconstruct what happened on that day. This one is ANI's version of what happened. I guess that the ANI's meaning of "administrators" is Wikimedia-appointed staff, not "administrators" in our sense. All members of the community would be "volunteer editors" from a legal standpoint, and they would need to represent themselves in case of a legal suit.

I will try to find some right-wing commentaries on Wikipedia which give us an idea of how they think.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Post them here if you find some — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't find any reputed articles opinionating on Wiki by reputed right-wing circles like RSS and VHP, but few organisation (Hindu Raksha Dal for example) are of the opinion that Wikimedia foundation is a CIA front etc... VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The crux of the case as far as I could read is that the editors did not quote proper sources and other citations while doing so. If they did, the defamation case would have been against the source rather than Wikipedia. It is always advised to edit Wikipedia by citing proper reliable sources rather than framing the self-made opinion of the editors themselves. The job of the editors is to culminate the information available across various platforms and put it together so that readers can obtain it in one place. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. The sources are fine. ANI is trying to portray the article as representing Wikipedia's own "opinion", and, so far, the Delhi High Court is siding with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what every anti-Wikipedia person in India does, especially when it’s related to the BJP. They don’t look at the sources; they just accuse Wikipedia of making things up. But they actually know that Wikipedia cites sources—they just refuse to acknowledge it. Because, their motive is always to discredit Wikipedia’s name. GrabUp - Talk 11:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It follows from the comment defendant no.1 submits that they have no connection with defendant nos.2 to 4 (20 August order) that the defendants 2 to 4 would need to appear before the court themselves. What exactly is the legal status of English Wikipedia? DougWeller, do you know? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You probably pinged the wrong @Doug Weller account — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. As this Wikipedia is part of the Foundation they are suing them. I can’t imagine they would reveal any names. That would set a terrible precedent. They haven’t revealed no names before. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If that happened and they disclosed the name, it would be a really big issue for Indian editors. Others might also start filing cases, such as OpIndia, for writing that it spread ‘fake news’. The interesting part is that the editors who added that part may have left Wikipedia forever, and one day, the court could come to their door, saying, ‘Go to jail or pay a fine.’ GrabUp - Talk 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that Wikipedia will disclose any real names, and I seriously doubt whether Wikipedia even possesses the actual identities of the individuals involved. What could they potentially share? IP ranges, fabricated usernames, or random email addresses, which are not even required for creating new accounts these days. In the rare event that Wikipedia does decide to share IP addresses or ranges (which is highly improbable), a legal notice to the ISP would be necessary to obtain the exact subscriber details tied to the specific IP address at the time of the edit. If the individual was using a VPN service, however, this would significantly complicate matters, making identification nearly impossible.

Moreover, Wikipedia is known for its staunch commitment to protecting user privacy. In this case, it is likely that Wikipedia itself, rather than the individual editors or even the sources cited, would bear responsibility considering wikipedia wont reveal anything. As I understand Indian law, Wikipedia, as an intermediary, is primarily accountable for what transpires on its platform — whether it concerns the sources its community deems reliable, those it disqualifies, or how it handles users who revert edits to a preferred version or block dissenting views. This also includes the types of communities it allows to flourish within itself and which it systematically restricts. My understanding is that the issue here, compared to platforms like X (formerly Twitter), is that users on Wikipedia are often exposed to a single narrative, with certain viewpoints censored to push specific agendas (referred to as POV pushing in Wikipedia’s terms). You even have to adhere to a NPOV, based on sources that are more or less ideologically similar, as many sources from the other side are outright dismissed as unreliable by the community or removed by mob rule (coincidence that only one side is most of the time considered correct?). The fact which makes wiki more important is that Wikipedia, unlike X, is an educational platform involved in shaping future minds. This does not bode well for Wikipedia’s operations in India. They may be required to pay fines to continue their operations, or possibly face some form of a ban.

However, I doubt that any individual editor will be identified. What if the editors are foreign nationals? Will they face restrictions on entering India, as was the case recently with a British-Indian writer who was barred from entry? Only time will tell. Wikipedia may be reverting to its roots. It was initially meant for Western audiences, and it might end up being read only by Western audiences in the end. And I suppose that's fine. DangalOh (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• In the light of this, there might shortly be an article on Navin Chawla (judge), and I hope experienced editors will watch it to ensure its content remains scrupulously appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Some IPs are directly threatening Indian editors with legal action on the talk pages of ANI and the recent Kolkata rape case. Should they be blocked per WP:LEGAL, or can we protect the talk page to autoconfirmed? GrabUp - Talk 07:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @GrabUp I can't find them. Can you be more precise? Doug Weller talk 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Most of the time, one IP range is consistently threatening Indian editors. It seems they may be associated with an organization called ‘Hindu Raksha Dal,’ as the same IP repeatedly claims they have filed a complaint with the ‘National Task Force for Doctor Safety’ against editor @VSankeerthSai1609. They are repeatedly sharing this email on the talk page of the Kolkata Rape Case. For example, the IP range initially threatened Tito Dutta, an Indian editor and admin, and other editors with legal action. Today, the same IP range has again threatened editors who opposed the removal of the victim’s name, warning them of legal proceedings. I believe a block is not the solution, but temporary protection for 3 to 6 months with autoconfirmed-only editing might be necessary. GrabUp - Talk 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  This one from Asian News International. GrabUp - Talk 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, found some biased and threatening message on my talk page a few days ago. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please report and/or block this IP 49.36.178.108 VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Here is the IP range, [1]. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  What complaint have they filed. Is this supposed to be a serious issue? There is nothing offensive about anything on the page of National task force for safety medical professionals wiki. I have just added the names of the members of the taskforce. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @GrabUp Protrcted. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is this the same Hindu Raksha Dal?

  https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/noida-news/ghaziabad-police-may-invoke-nsa-against-hindu-raksha-dal-leader-101723401345231.html VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  @VSankeerthSai1609: I think so. GrabUp - Talk 11:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Funnily enough, when I clicked on this section, I was actually expecting it to be about defamation on WP:ANI. That poor acronym… jlwoodwa (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• And now... Netflix What is going on with ANI? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is the one that I find funny - ANI complaining about someone using third party material, which they quite frequently do themselves. "PTI advocate Rajshekhar Rao said that there was “no apology needed” and that the video was a third party content. He said that it is “a case of pot calling the kettle black”. Media lawfare. Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello Noticeboard for India-related topics:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Port Blair

The official name of Port Blair recently been changed to Sri Vijayapuram. As usual, we have IDs and IPs changing the common name in various articles (I got to know from Andaman and Nicobar Islands), including two attempts at moving it to Sri Vijayapuram (and another iteration), both of which I reverted citing WP:RMUM, undiscussed unilateral moves. Hoping, people here will keep a tab at it. Pinging @Arjayay, Gotitbro, Ekdalian, Kautilya3, Ravensfire, and GrabUp: among other. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Another Allahabad problem surfaces. If the powers that be have a go at Renaming of cities in India#Proposed changes be ready for a regular occurence. Gotitbro (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm Exactly Gotitbro. Also people, see [2]. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Remind the editors about WP:NAMECHANGE, expecially "When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change." and ask them to help show that this has been done. Clearly local media would be doing this, but also India-wide and international media as well. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You must be joking, right? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And don't call me Shirley Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Port Blair#Requested move 13 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Port Blair#Requested move 13 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ravi Modi - Need help (article is eligible or not)

Hi, I would like to get some clarity regarding the article Draft:Ravi Modi as it has been declined 5 times. The article was made live once and later it was removed from livespace to draftspace. Please check the history for content. The current version which is rejected is the full content version. The reason I am mentioning it here is because it was again guided by Live Chat as help. I get full support from Live Chat & they have done with fact-check as well for the Forbes article which was released in the print version as well. Request to check the article and suggest whether it is eligible to create an article or else I will drop the plan. This is my last resort. Read many Wiki pages, notability, perennial sources, etc. I am getting mixed reviews that's why not feeling well. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @VKG1985, I read the Draft: Ravi Modi, and I have some thoughts. I typed in "Ravi Modi Vedant Fashions" in google and had a quick look. Ravi Modi seems to be somewhat notable. It does look like there is some coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. However, some of those sources look promotional. My advice, looking at the draft of the article and googling him, it is obvious Ravi Modi is notable for his success in business, therefore you should expand the section on his career. You can add more notable information and then reference the information with other reliable secondary sources. Make sure these sources do properly cover him though (see: WP:SIGCOV). MohReddy (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MohReddy, I have searched as guided & made changes accordingly. Have submitted for review. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)