Talk:The Wire (India)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why defamation suit isn’t for lead?

@Winged Blades of Godric: I never wrote that the wire was convicted but it was subject to multiple libel cases by Indian businessman. It’s not our concern that whether they’ve been vacated or not. Our concern should be to report that several businessman and politicians filled cases against the website. Only details like lawsuit is filled should be in lead, all of conviction or rebuttal or clarification must be included in lawsuits section. Here’s proposed line: Website has been subjected to several lawsuits by businessmen and politicians.—— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

We need to mention them as SLAPPs ..... ∯WBG^converse 07:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

How many RS call it as SLAPP?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Two pieces from (arguably) India's most premier reporting agency in legal affairs. There's a piece in Scroll.in and, another at LSPR as well. And, this speech by Siddhart Vardarajan; he has a COI but that the contents had passed the scrutiny of folks from one of the most reputed universities, we ought to consider it, as well ...... ∯WBG^converse 08:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, these websites form only minority point of view. Also, none of these covers all lawsuits on company and represent that they were SLAPPs. In most of the main stream newspapers, these doesn’t exist. Let’s fix it in this way:

• Proposing my line in lead.
• Writing about these in reception section. Like Website has been subjected to multiple lawsuits filled by Indian businessmen and politicians. Author1 thinks like... Author2 claims...

We can’t claim any lawsuit as SLAPPs until and unless they’re not convicted and accuser have been charged in all/most of the cases. Hope it clarifies.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Scroll’s article is mostly focused on Tejasvi when some random woman viraled her allegations and he obtained order from court against 49 media outlets at the time of election. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Focus is irrelevant; to quote:-

....It is a rare interim injunction that is converted into a permanent injunction or even leads to a proper finding of defamation. It takes a while but the injunction is usually lifted, occasionally after some minor correction (as in Jay Shah’s case) or a disclaimer (as in the Sahara case). That, however, is largely irrelevant – the idea is to suppress discussion and dissuade others from following up on the story.

All these cases fall under the category of SLAPP – Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation – suits.

∯WBG^converse 12:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

India does not have Anti-SLAPP measures and frivolous\vexatious litigation is almost never punished.

I don't know your precise definition of mainstream media but assuming them to equate decades-old brick-and-mortar outlets; hardly anybody covered these cases.

My version is:- It has been subject to several lawsuits by businessmen and politicians; most have been described to be SLAPPs. ∯WBG^converse 12:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Most should be replaced with some. Court didn’t give any specific judgement on Anil Ambani and Ravishankar’s case, Jay Shah’s case is still pending and it is shuffling between wire and Shah’s. Again, expect few portals, not all described them as SLAPP. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool; agreed. ∯WBG^converse 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Still it’s irrelevant for lead. Until and unless judiciary found website innocent, we can’t label all actions as SLAPP. Also, I never objected to post this minority view here. It is suitable for reception, not for lead. Most RS say it’s lawsuit then we’ve to put them as it is. Hope you’re getting point here. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I have removed the SLAPP claim, as there are no WP:RS to support the same. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoshiarpur Police

Newslinger Why are you reverting modifications without proper explanation? Pls discuss here if any concerns

-- Bmmanjesh (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what Newslinger reverted. But I just reverted a series of your edits which were sourced to Twitter. Please read WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with sourcing from Twitter. An official police account is calling an article published on The Wire as fake. I'm not stating it as a matter of fact but clearly stating without anything hidden. That's a relevant update for this page. -- Bmmanjesh (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You were advised to read WP:RS. You haven't said whether you read it or not. What does it say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bmmanjesh, although I did not revert your edits, it looks like you cited a Twitter (RSP entry) post in Special:Diff/950751396. Tweets are generally considered undue weight, unless they are mentioned by a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia articles are mostly based on reliable secondary sources, and primary sources (including tweets) are only used to supplement secondary sources with uncontroversial details. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The official twitter handles of Police, government and judicial departments can't be taken lightly. It is as genuine as the government website. Pranav jung (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If a tweet were significant, it would be discussed in a reliable secondary source. — Newslinger talk 21:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

There is a need to mention socio-political bias implicit in wire reporting and reporter. Like it is left-wing Muslim centered news portal of India. It's prominent faces have on several occasions opined RSS link and its harmful effect. But justified and humanised radical Islamic incident like tablighi jammat are selfless people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.69.25.47 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources for all claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Please also mention in the opening phrase that "The Wire" is a "left-wing" Indian news and opinion website so that people belonging to the left can easily identify it. Infogeeky (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

​Could you point to a good source we could use for that? – Thjarkur (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Social Media Critisim

Tayi Arajakate

I made the following change: "The Wire and it's editors have been widely criticized on various social media platforms for spreading a Hinduphobic rhetoric and publishing biased news by withholding facts." This was accompanied by citations to "Social Media" posts that are critical of The Wire.

Your response: Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Wire (India), without citing a reliable source.

Social media posts are not reliable for social media content?

Why are similar sources reliable enough to justify similar lines on the Opindia page but not reliable enough for The Wire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelia Reed (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Only published sources can be WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a 'published source'. https://www.hindupost.in/media/runs-funds-hinduphobic-anti-bharat-media-like-wire/ Amelia Reed (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Amelia Reed

I honestly did not expect Opindia to have an article criticizing The Wire and its editors, but apparently it exists. Source #2: The ‘protests’ that burnt the nation: How American citizen Siddharth Varadarajan’s The Wire collaborated with anti-CAA ‘protesters’ (Google the article) Amelia Reed (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Amelia Reed

Neutrality disputed in lawsuits section

@Chiragmalik943: Please can you explain why you think that the lawsuits section has a problem. You added a neutrality disputed template to the heading for that section, and gave as an edit summary:

Most of the content in this section seems biased and the writer(s) is(are) trying to make it look like The Wire is always right and it's the other side who is trying to bully them.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss Misinformation spread by Siddharth Varadarajan on Palghar Sadhu case

SV, in an attempt to whitewash the Hindu angle had asserted that the victims of the lynching's were NOT Hindus but were tribals of the Gosavi Tribe. However, it was found that the Sadhus were indeed Hindus of Tiwari and Dubey caste and were art of the Juna Akhara. When Swati G Sharma, a reporter at Swarajya had put this on Twitter, Sukanya Shantha continued asserting the lies. Subsequently, The Wire issued a clarification. We must note that SV had claimed this on grounds of a The Wire Ground Journo. You can search for this exchange on SGS Twitter Timeline and the Wire Website. Will attach linksif you consent to take this up. --YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)YoYoRockNRoll

YoYoRockNRoll, is there an edit that you want to add? I dont quite get what is it that you are asking.ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Please add this as an edit. I however doubt that there is a secondary source for the error by SV, besides Twitter being the primary source. YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss: Is The wire biased and anti-Hindu

Referring to various articles published in the wire, is it considered to be anti Hindu and biased news outlet? DavidWood11 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

DavidWood11, is there a specific edit that you are proposing? wikipedia talk pages are meant to be used for discussing edits, and not for writing opinions one may have about the subject ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Its not my opinion, opinion will be established in due course. This is general discussion. DavidWood11 (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11, please do not use Talk pages as opinion forum boards. Read WP:FORUM for more info. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Articles rely on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, for these kinds of descriptions. — Newslinger talk 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is not about any page or its content at all. It is about the portal the wire and its reliability. Whether Wire is biased , anti Hindu or not. And if it so, shall it be used as WP:RS. DavidWood11 (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Editors may guide to start the discussion in a manner deemed fit. DavidWood11 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You are probably looking for the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Misinformations

Newslinger how can you say that The Wire didn't propagate misinformations? Here is fact check by Alt News (IFCN signifactory). This report also says that The wire propagate misinformation. This is another. Here is fact check by Boom Live which says the wire used misleading graphics. How can these multiple sources fail [[WP:V|verification]?-- Brihaspati (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your claim ("Fact checkers have documented the site to have aided in the propagation of misinformation."), originally added in Special:Diff/926401785, was derived from an out-of-context interpretation of the cited sources when I removed it in Special:Diff/948754567.

1. "UP govt approved estimated budget of Rs 1.33 cr NOT Rs 133 cr for ‘Deepotsav’; media misreports" from Alt News states that over 15 different websites reported similar information, noting that "Nearly every mainstream news organisation carried similar reports". Alt News also noted that the IANS news agency carried the report.
2. "October 2019: Mainstream media at the forefront of misinformation" from Alt News is a summary of the same incident as the previous article (#1).
3. "Fact-check: Did Darul Uloom Deoband slam TMC MP Nusrat Jahan for celebrating Durga Puja?" from Alt News lists 8 different websites that reported similar information, as it was syndicated from the PTI news agency.
4. "Abhisar Sharma Airs Photoshopped Graphic Of Aaj Tak On Chandrayaan - 2" from Boom states that the article from The Wire was syndicated from a website named Indian Journalism Review.

The four sources were cherry-picked to form a vague and inappropriately broad "propagation of misinformation" claim that ignores the context of how many sources reported similar stories, and whether the stories were syndicated from different sources. If the Associated Press or Reuters makes a couple of mistakes, it would be misleading to edit an article on any of the thousands of sources that syndicate content from these news agencies to claim that the source engaged in "propagation of misinformation", especially without indicating the origin and the scale of the "misinformation". The verifiability policy states that "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article", and your extrapolation of the sources did not do that. Further, the "Fake news" section heading you added in Special:Diff/948710475 also failed verification. — Newslinger talk 10:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Why should the article be based on your personal opinion Newslinger? If you look at some similar articles like that of Swarajya (magazine), they clearly mention that the concerned has been subject to spreading misinformation. Since The Wire has been caught spreading the same multiple times, without any corrections, it should be clearly mentioned on this Wikipedia article. Therefore, I propose making a 'Controversy' section along with the instances when this blog was found spreading misinformation. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

For Swarajya (magazine), in Special:Permalink/950341420#cite_note-fake-6, there are four articles that contain Swarajya in the headline ([1][2][3][4]) and one more article that focuses on Swarajya's original reporting ([5]). In contrast, none of the articles above include "The Wire" in the headline, and all of them attribute the reports to syndicated sources. — Newslinger talk 14:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I had a quick look at sources and here is what I found. Swarajya indeed peddled fake news in Jaideep Mazumdar case and they apologised for same. For this also, they quoted Dainik Bhaskar which had originally misquoted Scindia. For this even, they quoted TV 9 and Deshgujarat's readings. These two are clear cases of passive reporting where sources, which are reliable per Wikipedia's standard, did misreporting. Regarding original reporting case, they indeed did misreporting. Based on these few instances, I don't think magazine needs such line in LEAD and in first paragraph. I am not of opinion to remove it completely from article but it should be shifted to third paragraph in LEAD. Waiting for your response! -- Brihaspati (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

TheodoreIndiana That's a good idea. I support the creation of a new section "Controversy" - Bmmanjesh (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Very recent news says that the wire has spread a misinformation about government policy. The official twitter handle of Public Information Broadcast had to clarify on it. https://twitter.com/PIBFactCheck/status/1263829454641643524?s=20 People often refer The Wire as leftist media house, and it seems criticizing government eventhough they have to lie in above Ahmedabad incident. Pranav jung (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

We defintely need a misinformation section. This will help in enhancing the quality of reporting done by Wire. BlackHatJr (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss: Indian Express Article on The Wire and violence in NE Assam among others

Read this article that speaks for itself about how The Wire triggered violence by misinformation. link : https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/guwahati/how-an-interview-led-to-a-violent-agitation-in-assam-district-bordering-nagaland-dima-hasao-protets-5042770/

Elaborate on Rohini Singh's shoddy article on Jay Shah which had massive errors and displayed her poor ability to comrehend finances. The Golden Touch of Jay Shah was nothing less than a hitjob and was factchecked by several portals.

The Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) too had called out The Wire for its lies. They had even tweeted out a letter to The Wire. https://twitter.com/cbic_india/status/932693786500538368?s=20

Glorification of Tahir Hussain who is an accused in delhi Riots https://thewire.in/rights/jail-bail-hearings-court-delhi-riots-elgar-parishad

The Wire spread Fake news claiming that ED had not found a link between PFI and Bhim Army. The tweet by ED must be taken as its official stand. relevant portals have covered the same. Search on Google

--YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)YoYoRockNRoll

YoYoRockNRoll, again, what is the edit you are proposing? Please understand wikipedia is not a forum to discuss views but an encyclopedia. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add this under Reception or Controversy. There are very serious ethics issues of TheWire that must be called out. I am a staunch supporter of Wikipedia mentioning the misinformation peddled by OpIndia but it will be hypocritical if we do not do the same for TheWire. YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

YoYoRockNRoll, whats this constant comparison with OpIndia? if you dont have a draft of what you want to add, I suggest stop spamming talk pages with whataboutism. ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you want me to get straight to the point, I request you to give consent to add the sections I have mentioned under 'Reception' or create a new section titled 'Controversy'. And no, I am not spamming anything as I have attached appropriate links and justification to my objections and requests. Please be polite. YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

YoYoRockNRoll, great that you are NOW talking straight to the point. now. draft it yourself, follow NPOV and RS. and edit the article yourself. what you have written in the opening post are some incoherent sentences (which btw reminds me of someone else who was recently banned for not following NPOV) ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead with the Assam violence section. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Political stance in lead.

As the articles of other media outlets which lean towards a certain political ideology mention their stances in the lead of the article (example: OpIndia, Swarajya), I propose adding TheWire's political stance, in edu, "left-wing" as described by Newslaundry in this article (https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/01/10/why-the-hindu-might-be-pushing-civil-services-aspirants-to-the-left) quote=Varadarajan founded The Wire, a Left-wing news portal known for its focus on anti-Modi narratives. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Vidit Bhosale, note that I've reverted your inclusion in Special:Diff/1016152865. The piece you are citing here is an op-ed from Anand Vardhan, who is a columnist at Newslaundry. In your addition, you cited two more sources, one of them is from Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) which is self published source and is considered to be generally unreliable, the other one is another piece on Newslaundry, written by Anand Vardhan, that mentions a number of outlets stating that they are centrist to center-left to left wing without any specificity.

If these are the strongest sources which refer to The Wire as "left-wing" then it does not merit inclusion in the lead. WP:RSOPINION states that opinion pieces are only reliable for the opinions of their authors and not for statements of fact. The other articles you mentioned in contrast have a multitude of sources including both news reports as well as scholarly works cited for their respective descriptors. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

An article titled "Political Economy of Media Entrepreneurship: Power, Control and Ideology in a News Media Enterprise" published in Nordic Journal of Media Management (an Open Access, Double blind Peer-Reviewed journal that publishes novel researches in the fields of media management, media economics, media entrepreneurship, media policy, media strategy, business models, advertising, audience studies, digital communications, etc.) reads —

Although it seemed The Wire represented the left side of the ideological spectrum, the founders’ position was more nuanced than that.

[...]

It is evident that people’s interpretations of ideology are different making it sometimes difficult to draw a line between left and right. This is especially true in a country like India, where many journalists support free market ideologies, as the liberalization policies in the 1990s witnessed a rise in salaries and an increase in the number of job opportunities. Therefore, it is not surprising that SK, a right-wing corporate liberal who writes for fame and glory, and AM, an activist, who thinks journalism is a political process, find their space in a left-leaning not-for-profit public service news website.

cc: Vanamonde93

Yuyutsu-69 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The article does not explicitly state that The Wire is left-leaning. The first sentence you have quoted here itself states that it is not clearly so, it mentions "left side of the ideological spectrum" in reference to its perception as a result of the backdrop of its founding, something that is elaborated on over the preceding pages in the article. The second paragraph that you have quoted seems to be a commentary on the identification provided by a group of interviewees and not the article's own conclusion.

Regardlessly, this is a good source so thank you for bringing it here and which may be used to substantiate a discussion on editorial stance in the body of the article (as mentioned by Kautilya3), that is among other aspects in general such as its model of operation which is the primary focus of the journal article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A section titled "Political stance" added.Yuyutsu-69 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it, it was not very incoherent and read like an attempted POV section? I'd also recommend not copy pasting from a source in that manner. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Why remove instead of amending?Yuyutsu-69 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That's what I intend to do, the studies have a lot of material and the article in general could be revamped so it'll take some time. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Just realised one of the sources was infact published under opinion section. However, the 'other article' mentions a number of outlets and attributes them to left wing, center-left and *occasionally* centrist which in all technicality implies that the bunch of pubs mentioned are by definition left-leaning (note: leaning and not definitely left-wing). Further, the next few lines talk about right wing magazines the same way. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that this doesn't belong in the lead. Some discussion of "left-leaning" could go in the body, if it can be substantiated. But the sources here don't provide any such substance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wire is not booked for communalism

Wire only reported what the old man said. It is wrong on so many levels to title booked for coomunalism. Pinky Singh 19991 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Need WP:RSs saying that the police didn't booked them for communalism. -- Eatcha 09:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

How is an FIR important to be in this page? Shouldn't it be placed under lawsuits? Title is very misleading from what actually happened. Pinky Singh 19991 (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"How is an FIR important to be in this page", because it's covered in multiple reliable sources. -- Eatcha 11:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

White washing

White washing by User:Tayi Arajakate in this edit. Can you clarify why did you remove mention of communalism? -- Eatcha 09:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, because the sources do not say they were booked for "spreading communalism"? The case itself is still present in the article. Please do not editorialise your additions. In the section above, you also mention WP:RS however half of the citations you used wouldn't be considered RSes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the word "spreading", what now? All the sources mention wire being booked for communal-angle/communalism. Explain, "however half of the citations you used wouldn't be considered RSes". -- Eatcha 10:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, You haven't removed "spreading" though, its still present in the text. Not to mention they weren't booked "for communalism" either. If you read through your own sources, there are specific IPC sections mentioned. Individual reports based solely on the police's account also do not not have due weight for a detailed account in an article about an organisation, the appropriate thing to do here would be to just mention that the police has a case against them and without requiring a dedicated subsection for it. If and when there is more coverage in secondary sources, it could be elaborated further.

Republic TV (RSP entry) and India.com are not RSes. News18, is likely only marginally reliable. Of these, only The Hindu (RSP entry) is a proper RS. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Only two Indian sources are labeled as "reliable" at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Both of them covered the issue and are using the terms communalism/communal-angle. Not only you removed the section but purposefully added it next to another past issue to white wash the article. It's just your opinion that the issue is not worthy of deserving any section, but then why the only 2 Indian reliable sources are covering it? -- Eatcha 11:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, The RSP entry isn't an exhaustive list of either reliable or unreliable sources, it just lists those which are repeatedly discussed. So, no the those aren't the only 2 Indian reliable sources.

Sustained coverage does not mean a single article here and there, it means continuous coverage over a longer period of time. Just because something has been covered by the newspapers doesn't mean it needs to be included in detail, this article is ultimately about an organisation of which this is a small aspect of its overall coverage since its inception. It's not my opinion that a single news event doesn't need an entire section, it's what the guidelines say. In comparison, you will see the litigation around Jay Shah has much more sustained coverage which is why it has a detailed account of it in the article.

I had moved it to a section which is a listing of their legal issues, where it should belong. You have restored it while we are still discussing it here even though the onus for building consensus for inclusion ultimately belongs on you which you don't have. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"The RSP entry isn't an exhaustive list of either reliable or unreliable sources, it just lists those which are repeatedly discussed. So, no the those aren't the only 2 Indian reliable sources.", how is India.com unreliable? You don't get to say what is reliable and what is not. You also failed to prove that "however half of the citations you used wouldn't be considered RSes". The burden to prove that half of "my" source aren't reliable is now on you. -- Eatcha 11:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, India.com is controlled by Zee News which is turn is connected to the ruling party. There is a clear lack of independence here, which sources require to be considered reliable. These aren't opinions but basic facts. News18 suffers from similar issues, although not to that extent and not as clearly. There is a whole plethora of other issues with these particular sources which if you want to discuss it, it can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. Onus refers to building consensus for inclusion of material in an article, it's not relevant to discussing the reliability of sources in particular.

Setting aside the question of RSes, your response didn't bother to address the meat of the arguement. That, your edit even if assumed all your sources were reliable still don't belong in the article in its manner and presentation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You don't get to decide it. And do you realty believe that FIR and lawsuit are same? -- Eatcha 12:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring to guidelines which you have ignored till now. I'd suggest self reverting and discussing it before restoring your addition. You can just change the heading to litigations if you are so concerned over the difference. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I may open an WP:RFC, When I have the time. -- Eatcha 15:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

How is an FIR important to be in this page? Shouldn't it be placed under lawsuits? Title is very misleading from what actually happened. Communalism is said by the police not by the court. Pinky Singh 19991 (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of The Wire (India) by Anand Vardhan of Newslaundry

Anand Vardhan, analysed this publication, including other digital and mainstream platforms namely: The Hindu and Frontline for left-leaning; centrism, neutrality and balancing of voices were practiced by The Indian Express and Times of India.

Quote for The Wire labelled as left-wing: "Later Varadarajan cited journalistic reasons for his decisions but the slant in the paper’s reporting on Narendra Modi’s prime ministerial candidacy was evident for those from the Right. This was reinforced when, two years later, Varadarajan founded The Wire, a Left-wing news portal known for its focus on anti-Modi narratives."

Quote for mainstream and digital newspapers exercising balance, centrism and neutrality: "One may juxtapose this with opinion pieces published over the last few weeks in the pages of The Hindu’s market rivals, like The Times of India or The Indian Express. Despite being editorially critical of the Act and giving dominant space to opinion pieces opposing the legislation, they have at least accommodated a few voices favouring the Act and reflecting on its merits and context."

Analytical critiquing, including weighting bias, is pointed out quite rightly in articles by Newslaundry noting Opindia spreads misinformation, fake news, right-wing leaning and having an Hindutva agenda (labelling Muslims as "perpetrators"). This include Swarajya rightly labelled as right-wing as well, as it being parent company of Opindia, plus obvious republishing of articles of Opindia, and absence of journalistic professionalism.

I think this analysis should be noted under Reception, or included at top of article with this source. Of course, being a centrist, balance is key for me. Glad to hear your opinions on these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.58.192.102 (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is an analysis of The Hindu. I wonder why this is being posted here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It is posted here because it mentions The Wire. ABurningFlower (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Their ideology is left-leaning. 103.55.63.184 (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment - Add alleged misinformation about a communal incident against The Wire in Reception

User:Tayi_Arajakate is actively indulged in White-washing this article. Examples below:

1. Removed fact-check of The Wire by the Government Of India. Covered by The Free Press Journal and are from a verified twitter account of the government (link to the tweet).
2. Removed info about the resignation of Varadarajan’s (founder of wire) ineligibility to be editor of another news-org paper because he is a US citizen.
3. Removed misinformation spread by The wire, "The Wire wrote a news article and claimed that The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights(NCPCR) saw a 8-fold increase in complaints post-coronavirus outbreak." Fact checked by the government of India.
4. Cites unreliable and fringe sources like indialegallive to back up the SLAPP argument. And removed phrases such as "ruled against The Wire and"
5. Removed "Anand Vardhan from Newslaundry wrote that "The Wire (is) a Left-wing news portal known for its focus on anti-Modi narratives", could have been added in reception by Newslaundry.
6. And now removing sections mentioning that Wire is booked for communalism by Police, and moving them at the bottom under litigation section.

Can we please have a controversy section in the article or at least mention the issue of police booking wire under the reception section, litigation are legal cases in a court not police booking someone for communalism and misinformation. -- Eatcha 21:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I was summoned by a bot for the RFC, but this is certainly not an RFC. An RFC should be a neutrally worded specific question. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

These are all adequately explained through edit summary. Some of them have relevant discussions on the talk page. If I remember correct some of these had original research in them as well. Anyways, if you can't understand why we can't use the government as a fact checker or why we can't cite opinion pieces from non-experts to make claims, etc then I can't help you. India Legal is also a mainstream source for legal news, it even includes M. N. Venkatachaliah among its associates.

You clearly haven't read WP:RFC. It among many things isn't for complaining about other editors. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

When did I say that we should use government as a fact-checker, I want inclusion based on fact that the PIB(a government org) fact-checked the articles and alleged that they were factually incorrect/misinformation. On Wikipedia, often people use phrases such as "US Government described the origination a terror organization" why can't we just mention what government of India said about the articles, as "PIB India fact-checked the articles and alleged misinformation" -- Eatcha 05:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, PIB is an arm of the government. We can't use them for the same reason we can't use any government denial or allegations of fake news against news organisations which have reported critically on them, due to their obvious conflict of interest. PIB's fact checks have also been found to be incorrect again and again and again by independent fact checkers, an article shouldn't be an indiscriminate collection of unsubstantiated claims against its subject. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eatcha US Government described the origination a terror organization - These are sourced from reliable secondary sources and are not a citing the US government's press releases / notifications / websites. If you found something otherwise, like citing the government directly, please raise the issue on the respective article's talk page and demand secondary sources. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Avoid Synthesis

u:TrangaBellam The inappropriate revert you made on The wire (India) is a case of synthesis as you rev summary says"rv govt censorship attempts carried in wiki-voice". Plz avoid synthesis. DavidWood11 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In India, lodging FIRs etc. are favorite tools of intimidating free press. This stays out unless some conviction happens of it. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

So according to this the name of kapil mishra shall be removed from page Delhi Riots 2020. As there is no conviction. DavidWood11 (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Kapil Mishra's role in triggering the anti-Muslim pogrom has been covered by about 100 media outlets. That is not the case over here. I have nothing against covering the registration of FIR but contextualize them. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that how many media outlets have covered any incident. Wiki demand the content must be covered by WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE. if you are stating government is censoring, then yours is a clear case of WP:BIASED and WP:SYNTHESIS. plz avoid that. DavidWood11 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems you are taking sides of the news outlet The wire and being not neutral. Not to mention, the news is covered by several news portals. However, it is to be noted that WP:NPOV shall be taken care by you DavidWood11 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. If your content is reverted, please gain a consensus as to why your content needs to be included. Speaking of which, the last sentence about the June 2021 UP police filing a case also needs to be expanded with context. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what i am doing here on this talk page. HOwever, to be noted that the revert made by TrangaBellam is not neutral. Many news portals are subject to controversies, so does The Wire. Maintaining NPOV is the primary requirement of wikipedia. however They stated in there rev summary that the government is censoring media which is his/her synthesis.DavidWood11 (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11, NPOV is a policy that covers content. Your statment that TrangBellam's revert was "not nuetral" doesn't make sense. If you are saying that the view expressed in his edit summary is somehow wrong, please note that there is plenty of coverage of Modi government's attacks on the press. Notwithstanding what he said, we always treat any government sources with caution because the government is typically an involved party. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That is a false narrative set by western media and some vested interest. that there is an attack on press freedom in India. If your claim is true, web portals like The Wire who compared Indian prime minister with Adlof Hitler and Korean Dictator didnt exist in India DavidWood11 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, all countries where you can compare the Head of State with Adolf Hitler/Kim Jong-un are harbingers of press freedom? Some bare-minimum competency is required to edit our encyclopedia. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Our opinions don't matter. It is the WP:RS that count. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Barabanki false news reporting by The wire

The following paragarph shall be added in this section.

A FIR has been filed against The Wire (India) and two of its journalist by Barabanki police in connection with spreading false information related to demolition of a Mosque. The administration claimed that it was an illegal structure and not a Mosque. The founding editor of The Wire called the FIR as baseless and claimed that UP state government did not believe in press freedom. DavidWood11 (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

References

WP:NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

SO this, this, this and this are also WP:NOTNEWS and shall be removed from the respective page? DavidWood11 (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This item is about exactly the same issue as Talk:The Wire#Avoid Synthesis, so it should not have a different heading. Would it be better if the heading "Barabanki false news reporting by The wire" were put instead of "Avoid Synthesis"? Or would it be better to make "Barabanki false news reporting by The wire" a level 3 heading (i.e. a subordinate heading under "Avoid Synthesis")?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• If an editor cannot tell the difference between a news story reporting that The Wire has been accused by the police of spreading disinformation, and stating in its own voice that The Wire has spread disinformation, they really should not be editing this page. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde Thanks for your valuable input. Based on your advice, the section will be restructured and written as follows.

"The Wire has been accused by the Barabanki police of spreading disinformation in connection with spreading false information related to demolition of a Mosque. A FIR has been registered against The Wire (India) and two of its journalist by Barabanki police. The administration claimed that it was an illegal structure and not a Mosque. The founding editor of The Wire Siddharth Vardarajan called the FIR as baseless and claimed that Yogi Adityanath led UP state government did not believe in press freedom. DavidWood11 (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

A few points where you should correct the English:

• "demolition of a Mosque" should read "demolition of a mosque". "Mosque" is a common noun and should not be capitalised unless at the start of a sentence.
• "two of its journalist" should read "two of its journalists". The noun needs to be plural.
• "and not a Mosque" should read "and not a mosque". "Mosque" is a common noun.
• "The founding editor of The Wire Siddharth Vardarajan called" should read "The founding editor of The Wire, Siddharth Vardarajan, called".
• "claimed that Yogi Adityanath led UP state government did not believe in press freedom" should read "claimed that the Yogi Adityanath led UP state government did not believe in press freedom". The "the" is necessary so that the reader does not stop reading at Yogi Adityanath and realises that the claim is about the government that Yogi Adityanath leads.

These grammatical corrections do not imply any kind of endorsement of your text. That is a different issue.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your grammatical corrections. The same shall be executed. If you have any other issue, you may flag it. DavidWood11 (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What? Haven't you been told already that it was an instance of WP:NOTNEWS? Copyediting doesn't make encyclopaedic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@DavidWood11: The current argument against your proposed paragraph is WP:NOTNEWS. So the question is, why does someone reading an encyclopaedia article about The Wire need to know about this? If police FIRs against newspapers were almost unheard of in India, that would be a good reason for inclusion. According to this June 2020 article in The Wire they are quite common. So what is special about this FIR that merits including it?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is because

1. media neutrality is of utmost value to any country and wikipedia itself, because they are used as WP:RS.
2. Any FIR against any media is a form of controversy.
3. Readers of wikipedia must be aware of these controversies specially against news media.
4. According to you if any FIR or controversy shall not be included in wiki page of any news portal then this, this, this and this are also WP:NOTNEWS and shall be removed from the respective page? DavidWood11 (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

But what is special about this FIR?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Read Pt. No. 1 & 3 above DavidWood11 (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@DavidWood11: What I understand from your reply is that there is nothing special about this FIR.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Plz read point no 9 below DavidWood11 (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at the four sections you pointed. The first one JNU sedition has its own article Jawaharlal Nehru University sedition row. If you believe it is WP:NOTNEWS, please go ahead and tag it with AfD. Spoiler alert: that won't succeed. GPS story and Navjot Singh Sidhu seem very notable events. Mahua Moitra might need another opinion. Though they all probably need an update as to what happened later. Regarding FIR, if I go and file one, are you going to add to WP? There's a difference between filing a police report vs documenting evidence of fabrications. Back to the original issue, if the FIR and investigation becomes notable, then that will make its way into the article. — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

5. WIll certaily gonna do AfD for JNU.

6. GPS story and Navjot Singh Sidhu seem very notable events On what basis?. So do this Barabanki news reporting by Wire. This news was covered by at least 15 WPRS.

7. Even you are not sure about Mahua Moitra. But, you choose to defend against this addition.

8. If you file an FIR against me (if i represent news media and wikipedia uses me as WPRS). I might/might not have been in some controversy, Offcourse the WP article mention about the same about both views mine and yours neutrally.

9. This FIR is notable as it involes news media as ( plz refer Pt no 1 & 3 above) and is covered by at least 15 WPRS.

10. Plz reply point-wise otherwise yours involvement is considered as distraction. DavidWood11 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no end to this dispute. I suggest following up as with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11 answers questions with an irrelevant answer. He might just as well repeat endlessly: "four legs good, two legs bad.".-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Improper responseDavidWood11 (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If the FIR is notable, write an article on it. It does not appear relevant to this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

11. If FIRs and controversies are not to be included in the pages of media houses. Then, a lot of other pages come under the purview of review or removal of mention of FIR and controversies. That is a bad example to set. As i said in Pt No. 1,3 & 9 above. DavidWood11 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be per se notable, just needs to be balanced with other aspects of the subject of the article, properly contextualised based on how other reliable sources describe it and should not generally be based solely on initial news coverage. This is also not the place to discuss material about other articles; not to mention the examples provided are not comparable to this, it should be fairly obvious that "fake news" allegations would need independent secondary sources to be stated in wiki-voice, not just accusation from the administration which is an involved part and has a potential interest in delegitimising critical coverage.

Regarding the FIRs concerning The Wire, individually they don't merit inclusion but they have collectively received sustained independent coverage from other reliable sources so I've summarised the coverage and included it in the article now. Note, none of them supports the allegation but rather refers to the FIRs as a press freedom violation, which makes the above described presentation, an inapproapriate granting of equal validity to the police accusation and response from the editor. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate Avoid vandalism as you did here DavidWood11 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The wire reliable source?

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.

---

Web portal The wire relible source?LodoVena (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

yes. It is an online newspaper.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

plz give me the refrence if its reliability (for use in wikipedia as WPRS for Indian politics et al) was discussed on wikipediaLodoVena (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

whether any past discussion on WPRSN related to relibilty of the wireLodoVena (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not suspect The Wire has been discussed, yet. I do not see a reason for discussion either. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

i do see a reason for discussion at WPRSN LodoVena (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@LodoVena did you search for the discussion? Venkat TL (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

i am searching for past consensus, if any?LodoVena (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2022 (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.

Fact based expose of The wire(India) by Opindia

The wire had recently writtten an article tiled "Time for an 'Accurate and Down-to-Earth Assessment' of Vikrant, Say Veterans" which is based on an interview given by Navy veteran Commodore Jaideep Maolankar (R) to Barkha Dutt.

Later through a series of tweets Commodore Jaideep Maolankar (R) called out The Wire biased and filled with vested interest. Cmde Maolankar pointed out how that was also deceitful on The Wire’s part as what they did make it appear like he gave an interview to them. Opindia has done a perfect expose of the wire.

The details about the biased reporting by The Wire may be added in this page. Maduadih (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC))

References

OpIndia is not a reliable source. Someone's Twitter account is only a reliable source for what the person has said (see WP:SELFSOURCE).

It is difficult to see anything objectionable in Bedi, Rahul (6 September 2022). "Time for an 'Accurate and Down-to-Earth Assessment' of Vikrant, Say Veterans". The Wire (India).. There are books on the histories of different Royal Navy aircraft strike carriers - the ones that had steam catapults and operated fast jets - what is happening to the Vikrant is similar to what happened to them – it is what you should expect in an experienced competent navy like the present-day Indian Navy or the Royal Navy of the 1950s and early 1960s.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Does "the wire" still qualify as reliable source for Wikipedia?

Just curious about the hurried edits and restrictions on this page. Is a cover-up going on here? Vis14620 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally , I do not think so, The Wire's quality of news coverage has been questioned extensively by right-wing news websites , who albeit sometimes unreliable seem to have raised very pertinent questions against The Wire Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSN. Not this t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Then which ? Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSN - did you click the link? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Got it !!

Merci Beaucoup !!! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Since you haven't mentioned it, there is only one "right-wing news website" that has extensively covered them which is the wholly unreliable OpIndia. The Wikipedia "cover up" thing is some of their typical nonsense as well and reiterating it here is a personal attack. I'm going to archive this section as this isn't the place to air OpIndia grievances and is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM (instead of deleting it as it has already been responded to). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

The wire is known to publish fake news. Thejusdutt123 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Guy Rosen

Why is Guy Rosen being added. The spokesperson's note is enough. Spokespersons's act is more relevant due to the internal note too. What about Guy Rosen? Venkat TL (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sophie Zhang

@Ohnoitsjamie Several whistleblowers and Reporters have reacted to this. considering the short length of the para, it is Undue. If it is elaborated with more details and there is space to add a para of reactions, may be then Sophie Zhang can be added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie. You said Zhang has "relevant connection to the issue". Can you please elaborate what relevant connection to the issue? --Venkat TL (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Writing 101

The basic guide to writing articles on Wikipedia is to not use self-published sources. That means The Wire is not a reliable source for drafting an article on The Wire. Even more so, when it is increasingly evident that the publication had either forged documents or was the victim of a not-so-competent trickster. So, the section needs to be rewritten sourced to high-quality sources preferably from outside India. Kautilya3, heads up. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The program granted special rights to a list of whitelisted users creating a elite group that did not have to adhere to guidelines. (Sen '22; Horowitz '21)

This is why weasel words are against MOS. The "special" rights Sen claims to have discovered from her source is a few orders-of-magnitude greater than what Horowitz reported. Putting them in a continuum is a disservice to our readers. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Preferably from outside India and the US. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think removal of the entire section was necessary. I see several sources other than Wire in the reference. Akshaypatill (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I will wait for another few days. There's gaping holes in The Wire's claims but they are yet to be documented by some external publication-of-repute outside of the Twitterverse. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know why there is a section on it here. If the stuff pans out, it should be a section on the Meta page. Does The Washington Post have a section on the Watergate? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Whatever happened, it doesn’t look good for The Wire. One way or another, there’s mounting evidence that their initial reports weren’t quite telling the whole story. Some skeptics believe The Wire fabricated the evidence entirely and created a phony story in an attempt to smear Meta. Meanwhile, others think The Wire might’ve been the subject of an elaborate ruse, with someone close to Meta creating the fake evidence and tricking the journalists into believing it’s real. There are even some who think someone aligned with the BJP leaked the story in a deliberate effort to discredit the publication. But wherever the confusion came from, the point of reporting is to suss this stuff out — and that clearly didn’t happen here.
— Roth, Emma (2022-10-17). "Everything you need to know about Meta's moderation controversy in India". The Verge.

The journalists behind a controversial series of stories tell us they haven't been hoaxed. We're not so sure. [..] We have grave doubts about The Wire’s reporting, which among other inconsistencies seems to have relied upon a fabricated email from Meta spokesman Andy Stone and a phony Workplace instance set up in the aftermath of the original report. [..] But rather than back that claim up with extraordinary evidence, what The Wire has mustered so far has mostly served to undermine confidence in its original report.
— Newton, Casey; Schiffer, Zoe (2022-10-17). "Inside the messy fight between Meta and The Wire". Platformer.

Interesting coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

So, the inevitable happened. The two "independent" researchers whom The Wire claimed to have their verified DKIM signature (not that it will prove anything with certainty) of Stone's email has publicly refuted being part of any verification process! As of now, The Wire is stalling all future publications on the Metagate and initiating an internal review of its editorial mechanism involving the ombudsman. Venkat TL, please propose the way we shall go about including this, thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems like they were being fooled again and again or were fabricating things. [6] Akshaypatill (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we write the section after their review. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems more like deliberate fabrication - I'm not sure how else they would end up having quoted two experts who had not verified anything for them. After all, for this part atleast, it would be The Wire reaching out to the experts, and not someone with a fake ID approaching them.

This also raises eyebrows at their previous investigation about Tek Fog, which had similar irregularities, and shared the fact that it could not be verified by anyone other than them. Certainly an interesting turn of events. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

One of their reporters almost certainly fabricated material but I don't think it makes sense to accuse the publication as a whole considering they themselves gave the ids of the experts to outside parties for them to verify ([7], [8]) which has led to this. One of the experts is also fairly clear that he was only contacted by the reporter in question and blames the publication for not verifying ([9]).

So most likely a case of a reporter duping the publication rather than an external party doing so, not unheard of. That said he was one of two reporters who worked on Tek Fog as well so maybe you do have a point there. Regardless, we would have to wait for the review, the aftermath, etc and ultimately see what secondary sources have to say. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The tech journalists at The Wire are not very strong. This was already apparent with the Tek Fog story. Now they made major faux pas, either on their own or with the help of our friendly IT cell. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - this does seem like a reporter gone rogue but much of it was evident from the start and should not have flown past editorial review. Does not affect the reliability of the publication but we ought not source tech coverage from them anymore. In the meanwhile, I will wait for more clarity. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(Responding to ping), Due to the new developments the last version cannot be restored as it is and would need updates. Better to wait for updates. This author [10] [11] has good comments on the events. And FB's claim about email domain is demonstratedly false. [12]. Venkat TL (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Venkat TL, see for yourself. [13] Akshaypatill (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean.... Its kinda hard to pretend that The Wire report is true, though it can be argued that the fabrication may be from an individual, or a set of individuals, and not the entire organisation (Which still, raises important questions about the editorial standards there). The twitter user you mentioned in your message, makes several claims; however keep in mind these are from October 11th. The Wire report, which included the screenshot of the fabricated email, as well as the opinions of two experts, was debunked only on 18th of October. I doubt his personal views, taken a week before the expose will still hold value. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

You might be mixing things up. The opinions of the two experts were shown through email screenshots which were found to be fabricated by a reporter. The Meta Comms Head's emails were never conclusively shown to be so; it was here that Meta had responded by saying that they don't use the "@fb.com" email domain anymore which we know is false.

Now, the comms email was a fruit of a poisoned tree along with the rest of the reports, due to the heavy involvement of the reporter in question, the sources originating from him, other discrepancies, etc which led to a whole retraction. As far as editorial standards are concerned, this is how one is expected to respond to poor stories and is a positive indicator. Anyways this has veered off course into a general discussion which is not what an article talk page is for. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The email I was referring to was the one where they had the "impossible date" that they would later edit the screenshot of, not the original mail. Though, it is not a certainty that Andy Stone uses @fb - the only actual reliable source we have is that he used it till two months ago, which may have changed by the time this happened.

Although yes, this may not be the best place to have a chit chat :D. Interesting discussion regardless. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Anybody actually up for writing this section? So far, we've only seen discussions with no draft in place either. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, I just saw a headline on WP and The Wire on OpIndia, may be related to the topic of this thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yaa.. OpIndia.. lol. They are just hellbent against WP and even tried to dox, unless they were successful, a lot of our editors — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• So, the "expert from Microsoft" has explicitly rejected of being involved with The Wire's Metagate at any point of time. If I am not wrong, he was the guy whose authority was appealed to, by the same reporter, in the TekFog case. Accordingly, I see no reason to trust the Tekfog reporting and as such, has removed the section. In the upcoming days, I will draft a single paragraph on the episode primarily sourced from Newslaundry, CNN etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

In that case, we might have to re write the Tek Fog page as well - It has large sections taken entirely from the Wire. Ill look into that tomorrow, a bit busy today and its a bit late at night. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The TekFog stories stand retracted pending investigation - so, just redirect the page to here? When the page was created, I had urged the editors (read, VenkatTL) to proceed with caution and linked to Samarth Bansal's review; if only... TrangaBellam (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do, since there wasnt much follow up on that story by either journalists or authorities. Just reactions and it fizzled out in a few days. Most sources are just news articles attributing to the wire and saying there's a controversy. I think it would probably be best to write a section here, seeing whatever reliable sources can be salvaged from there. Afterwards we can redirect that page to the section on this page. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed the same and took the liberty of writing that section up. This is my first major edit and I made sure to cite appropriately. Would you mind checking it out, I hope it meets the standards. I have included a brief summary of the allegations, the reactions to it as well as the controversy and present status. Vedaanty (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Decent but Devesh deleted his account as soon as he had guessed the inevitable outcome of the "review" which was about a couple of days ago. Not after the death-knell was sounded. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Tek Fog & Meta

The current section reads:

In January 2022, The Wire alleged that the Bharatiya Janta Party were using a specialized app, Tek Fog, to influence public opinion, harass critics and spread propaganda. The Wire alleged that the app made it easy to create and control a large quantity of fake accounts on multiple popular platforms such as Whatsapp, Facebook and Twitter.

However, independent tech journalist Samarth Bansal, in his newsletter and then in conversation with Newslaundary and the Hindu, claimed that there were irregularities in the story and the claims fell apart on closer scrutiny.  Bansal further claimed that the stories simply didn't have enough evidence to prove the conclusions.

In October 2022, The Wire suspended access to all Tek Fog stories after launching an internal investigation after discrepancies were detected in their coverage of Meta.  Devesh Kumar, the journalist responsible for both the Tek Fog story and Meta-XCheck story deleted his account and website, after The Wire released a statement that a member of their Meta investigation team "deceived" them.  The Tek Fog story remains in indefinite review and it has been removed from The Wire's content library.

Both Meta and Tek Fog are separate blunders/controversies. Why have they been merged here?

-TheodoreIndiana (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

They haven't.. It's just a passing mention of Meta because thats the reason the Tek Fog story was taken down.. There should be a seperate Meta section soon based on the above talk, I just didn't write it because it seems there is a lot of controversy over it..

Might just write one in a bit if anyone else hasn't Vedaanty (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Dissolution of the controversy section should be discussed and possibly reverted with changes

Hello, I have noticed that @Tayi Arajakate removed a large portion of the Meta-Xcheck controversy and integrated into the reception section. Considering that this and Tek Fog were by far the largest stories the Wire has done and have had massive impacts on the credibility of the source it seems arbitrary to reduce it to two small paragraphs. I do understand that there were issues with name the section controversies, which can easily be remedied and issues with using primary sources can also be fixed. However, to dissolve the entire section seems like a massive disservice considering how large the issue was.

It also seems unfair to burry it and not have any mention of the controversy in the opening section considering that this has been by far The Wire's most 'ground-breaking' and popular reporting, and it has now been retracted. Vedaanty (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Originally a 'Controversy' section was there which @Tayi_Arajakate removed. The section should be restored due to the depth of the entire Meta-XCheck episode. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The Wire, an Indian news organization that published — and retracted — sensational stories this month about Instagram and an official from India’s ruling party, said Thursday that it had been deceived by one of its own employees in one of the most bizarre scandals to hit Indian journalism in years [..] The developments highlighted the growing controversy — and new financial and legal risks — facing a tiny but pugnacious media outfit that has battled the Indian government for years and is now fighting to salvage its journalistic credibility.
— Shih, Gerry (27 October 2022). "India's Wire says it was 'deceived' by staffer in articles about Instagram". The Washington Post.

In light of the representative coverage, I agree that Tayi's edit is not optimal but the previous version was hardly better. I suggest that editors propose their versions on t/p and gain consensus before inclusion. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the previous version.. Suggest changes to it and I will do the needful.. I used primary sources because I thought that was allowed in the case of quoting statements from an individual. I will substitute it with secondary sources. What else needs to be changed?

I believe a complete detailed section is required because this is definitely the Wire's largest story and will define them for a long time to come. To discuss it in two paragraphs and call it complete would be a disservice. Vedaanty (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is the Washington Post's' journalistic credibility that I am wondering about at present. This news story is making claims that no other source has made. Obviously, it has enough weight that we should mention it, but it is subject to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a strange argument, coming from you of all people. There was a reason, I used the word "representative coverage" but if you need more sources:

The state of journalism in India, the “world’s largest democracy,” has never been so dire. And recently, it just got much worse—this time not because of the government or its acolytes, but because of a once-dependable news website whose mistakes will have ramifications far outside the subcontinent [..]

It’s a sad place for the Wire to end up. Founded in 2015 by storied Indian journalists to act as a multilanguage news and opinion resource, the Wire had become one of the most dynamic Indian publications of the Modi years, a singular bulwark against the flood of false and propagandistic “news” that took over so much of Indian media. Along with outlets like the Caravan, Scroll, Alt News, the Print, and Cobrapost, the Wire offered detailed, incisive reporting on the realities of modern-day Indian life and politics. It’s made a huge impact, with several articles uncovering the rot of Modi’s regime [..]

Every publication makes mistakes, some far more serious than others. But the Wire-Meta saga appears to display sheer irresponsibility on the former’s part—both in reporting the original story and in doubling down on it. It’s embarrassing to admit you’ve perhaps been taken for a ride; if this were a sting, it could be evidence savvy Indian right-wingers are adopting tactics not unlike those employed by some American conservatives, who’ve attempted to hoodwink major newspapers so as to decimate their credibility. [..]

But the publication will not escape this story or recover from the fallout anytime soon. Already, commentators have called for reevaluations of the Wire’s past tech reporting (which I’ve often cited in my own writing). Online trolls who’ve often harassed reporters and undermined their work are filled with glee. It’s all a deep, injurious blow.
— https://slate.com/technology/2022/10/india-facebook-wire-meta-journalism.html

Many experts believe that the controversy around the Meta story could damage the publication’s credibility and make it easy for its critics to dismiss its reporting in the future.
— https://restofworld.org/2022/the-wire-vs-meta-india/

Wanting to believe is a fine quality in a pilgrim but a lousy one for holding power to account. Indeed, the result is the exact opposite of what the Wire had intended. Meta has avoided fresh scrutiny over its relationship with the bjp or the special privileges it may grant powerful figures. The bjp, for its part, has remained silent, but no doubt rejoiced as one the country’s few remaining outlets for critical journalism shattered its own credibility. A willingness to listen to critics might have helped the Wire spot its mistakes earlier.
— https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/10/27/a-prominent-indian-independent-news-site-destroys-its-own-credibility

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe these journalists have short memories, or they just don't know. But I haven't yet forgotten the scandal to which Nidhi Razdan was subjected. It is all in the game. Take it slow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Granted but I do not see any parallel except, perhaps, the involvement of bad faith actors. It was bizarre individualist targeting of journos incl. pro-Govt. ones and even one BJP spokeswoman! I wonder if Razdan has filed any case in USA to have GoDaddy subpoenaed into sharing details about the owners of HarvardCareer.com. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

There have been much bigger scandals, for instance the PCI report on paid news, the 2018 Cobrapost stings, Radia tapes, etc. The quoted pieces are mostly speculating about what's going to happen or is an opinion in a column (The Economist piece). In any case, regardless of however major the scandal may or may not be, it is not justifiable to dedicate a section to it particularly one so detailed that it exceeds the sections of history, content and reception combined. At that point the article becomes more about the scandal than the subject of the article. Specific incidents; positives, negatives and all should be clubbed together in topical sections if we are to follow our policies on due weight and proportionality. So two paragraphs in the reception section is about right if not more than necessary, note that it was nearly half the section, not as little as its being made out to be. In addition, if and when Malviya beings the lawsuit, it'd have a section under litigation as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The whole thing didn't last more than a week or two. The Wire published a story, it got countered, then it presented what it thought was supporting evidence, and the holes became apparent. It did an internal investigation and retracted the story. Meanwhile, the original tweet that got blocked remains blocked for the original post that got blocked, no explanations have been offered and nobody else has investigated it.

Of course, we shouldn't be blind to the larger meaning of the episode. The Wire was attacking the ruling party of India and one of world's largest multi-national companies. So it needed to much more careful and thorough in its processes, which it failed to be. (In comparison, the Tek Fog investigation lasted two years, and involved several independent tech experts to assess the evidence.)

The Wire did say it was "deceived" by an employee ("a member of our Meta investigation team") but it didn't reveal the nature of deception. It certainly didn't imply that the whole thing was concocted by him. The Washington Post tries to imply that it was. But the nature of "deception" could have been something minor, like withholding some information that might have raised red flags for the editors. We don't know. At present, we don't know very much. All we have are commentaries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not see how Kumar's deception could have been minor. How do you explain the two experts rejecting that they have ever corroborated with Kumar or The Wire? Fwiw, Vardarajan has claimed to The Platformer that it was Kumar who was at the helm of the Metagate reporting and has done all the verification of emails etc.

@Tayi:

The Economist article referenced my me is an editorial by Dominic Ziegler, the current Asia-editor of the publication.

Radia Tapes Controversy happened in 2010, precisely twelve years ago? The PCI report, which was broken by Dougal, happened the same year. Unless you take into account the routine spreading of garden-variety misinformation and disinformation from the vast majority of media — who have long ceased to be one —, this is indeed one of the most bizarre credibility-crisis in recent past to have hit Indian journalism.

A part of why The Wire went on violating the law of holes until things got way out of hand was because its editors held the cautious reception from the left-lib media-fraternity to be a product of jealousy and schadenfreude rather than justified concern at how their shoddy approach to investigative journalism had a real potential of affecting the credibility of the few independent journalism outlets that remained under Moditva. Such concern, as amply reflected in media commentary, needs to be in our article but in strict abidance to WEIGHT, DUE etc.

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Meta Instagram - BJP nexus

Is this part relevant?

Editor Siddharth Varadarajan said that they will continue reporting on "the toxic relationship—between Big Tech, Government, Hate Speech— that is destroying democracy, civility and public discourse". Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it helps the reader in understanding the significance of this investigative report. Venkat TL (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And Sophie Zhang's comment as someone who's worked for Meta and is a whistleblower, doesn't matter? Btw, Guy Rosen said that the emails were fabricated too, why did you remove his name @Venkat TL:?

Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that Zhang's comments are relevant given what she's notable for. Given how poorly-written the documents are (supposedly written by a "communications director"), it's not undue to include criticism of their legitimacy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Note I've re-written the entire section. It was pretty poorly written and didn't explain the actual meat of the issue. Anyways this is a developing story so we need to wait more than anything. Regarding Zhang I don't see how she is any more relevant that the plethora of other people who have opined on this and we certainly shouldn't be including things based on our opinions of the documents. I'd say the responses from Meta and criticism and/or evidence is due but not other extraneous commentary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Did somebody remove this section? It's possibly the biggest investigative report The Wire has ever done and it finds no mention here? - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheodoreIndiana a user named TrangaBellam claimed that it is self published even though multiple reliable source like CNN and others were used and with this argument as strawman they removed the entire section, In my opinion the removal was totally inappropriate and should be reverted. Venkat TL (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Would recommend you to restore the section. We can rewrite with better sources if that's an issue - I can see that the entire controversy has now been covered by Business Standard, Scroll, Economic Times, and Meta themselves. Please also avoid deleting sourced sections without consensus and discussions. Head's up @Akshaypatill @Kautilya3 - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, propose a draft and we will see. And as I noted, the section needs to be rewritten sourced to high-quality sources preferably from outside India. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you up for writing the section? -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I plan to. Please comment at the last section to keep all relevant discussion at one place. ~ TrangaBellam (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Would highly recommend restoring this section. Completely inappropriate removal. The reason for removal - "the section needs to be rewritten sourced to high-quality sources preferably from outside India.", is not justified. Fair amount of the sources that were removed were outside from outside India. The Verge, CNN, The Independent and Washington Post are all good and reliable international sources based on their past reporting. Assuming user contributed in good faith, if Indian sources were the issue user could have only removed those sources and kept the edit. Worst, the new edit doesn't acknowledges clear editorial lapses and falsification of facts from The Wire's reporter. UndercutIndian (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My reservations were regarding this edit that was done 1 hour back, if this came across without context. But it seems a user has already removed that edit. UndercutIndian (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment about "high-quality sources preferably from outside India"

I added the following comment as a response to @TrangaBellam's demand for "sourced to high-quality sources preferably from outside India.":

"Preferably from outside India" -- in general, foreign reporting of Indian/South Asian content is often shoddy and unreliable. (See, for example this research paper.) While one may think it makes sense as per WP:NPOV, it will lead more often to problems violating WP:RS. Also reeks of elitism.

see edit, which was by removed by @TrangaBellam with the comment "thanks but no thanks". I then restored my comment, which was again deleted by @TrangaBellam with a vague reference to the discretionary sanctions re: India-Pakistan.

I know WP:AGF as well as WP:AAGF, so I'm not able to understand why @TrangaBellam has been repeatedly removing my comment. This violates WP:TALK. Also, I do not see how the threat of discretionary sanctions makes sense here. Unless @TrangaBellam clearly specifies what he finds so objectionable in my comment that it cannot even exist on a talk page, I urge him to stop deleting it. I believe the reference I added to research indicating systematic biases in foreign reporting about India is relevant against the demand above. Arceus775 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, please make it a point not to mess with other peope's posts.

As for the comment, TB said "preferably", not "necessarily". India's press freedom has been shot, and particularly when dealing with the ruling party, we can't be sure who has been influenced and in what ways. So, we may decide to avoid them altogether. But I don't think we have reached that point yet for this topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And also, India doesn't have much of a technology press, and the Indian tech people don't have much training in communication. That is another reason to look for global sources.

Finally, I don't think Wikipedia will care for your opinion about foreign sources being "shoddy and unreliable". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be making many sweeping conclusions about India and its press that are outlandish and merit rebuttal ("India's press freedom has been "shot", "India doesn't have much of a technology press", "Indian tech people don't have much training in communication"), but that's a topic for another time. My intervention right now was limited to pointing out problems with foreign reporting about India, peer-reviewed research paper linked. Subsequently, to point out that deleting opposing perspectives on Talk pages is not okay.

In any case, I hope you don't presume to speak for all of "Wikipedia", which would be a bit much. Arceus775 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Versions

TrangaBellam

Create a new section titled "Tech journalism" with the following content (I have not bothered to provide the sources):

On 10 October 2022, The Wire alleged Meta to have provided Amit Malviya, the head of the Social Media wing of the incumbent ruling party in India, with the ability to delete any post on Instagram bypassing the usual content moderation system. Meta denied the accusations only for the publication to leak an internal message from Andy Stone, the Communications Director of Meta, expressing frustration at the leak of Malviya's privileges. Meta re-denied the authenticity of the email prompting the issuance of a detailed report that not only featured email-communication from two anonymous "experts" verifying the DKIM integrity of Stone's email but also had a semi-redacted video of an in-house moderation tool attesting to Malviya's privileges.

Soon, a variety of flaws — date-day mismatch, cursor jumps etc. — were spotted in the video that pointed to probable fabrication and other tech-journalists began to cast doubts on whether the evidence supported the publication's extraordinary accusations. Meta, in particular, claimed that the in-house tool was actually an external workplace account set up a week earlier with mala fide intentions. On 18 October, both the experts issued categorical rejections of any involvement with The Wire at any stage, rejecting the emails attributed to them. A day later, all the reports were removed from the content library pending internal review and on 23 October, they were retracted. Later, the publication would claim to have been deceived by one of their reporters.

More, to come including endnotes that provide more context. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well written, though I would recommend slight change in tone for para one for a bit more clarity and ease of reading.

On 10 October 2022, The Wire alleged Meta to have provided Amit Malviya, the head of the Social Media wing of the incumbent ruling party in India, with the ability to delete any post on Instagram bypassing the usual content moderation system. Meta denied the accusations only for the publication to publish an "internal message" from Andy Stone, the Communications Director of Meta, expressing frustration at the leak of Malviya's privileges. Meta again denied the authenticity of the email prompting The Wire to issue a detailed report that not only featured email-communication from two anonymous "experts" verifying the DKIM integrity of Stone's email but also had a semi-redacted video of an in-house moderation tool attesting to Malviya's privileges.

Soon, a variety of flaws — date-day mismatch, cursor jumps etc. — were spotted in the video that pointed to probable fabrication and other tech-journalists began to cast doubts on whether the evidence supported the publication's extraordinary accusations. Meta, in particular, claimed that the in-house tool was actually an external workplace account set up a week earlier with mala fide intentions. On 18 October, both the experts issued categorical rejections of any involvement with The Wire at any stage, rejecting the emails attributed to them. A day later, all the reports were removed from the content library pending internal review and on 23 October, they were retracted. Later, the publication would claim to have been deceived by one of their reporters.

No objections to the rest. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Should be added.. What about Tek Fog? I noticed that the other page is also back up with only a small disclaimer at the very end that the wire has removed the stories. Vedaanty (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait a few hours. Drafting a paragraph on after-effects (Tek Fog retraction) and general reception of the scandal. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

These are too detailed, blow-by-blow accounts that fall into the trap of WP:RECENTISM. Tayi's write-up here is at the right level of detail. I think we should start from this and discuss what more is needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Version 2

On 10 October 2022, The Wire alleged Meta (formerly Facebook) to have provided Amit Malviya, the head of the Social Media wing of the incumbent ruling party in India, with the ability to delete any post on Instagram bypassing the usual content moderation system. Facing Meta's categorical denials, the publication went on to to publish an "internal message" from Andy Stone, the Communications Director, expressing frustration at the leak of Malviya's privileges and a detailed report that not only featured email-communication from two anonymous "experts" verifying the integrity of Stone's email but also had a semi-redacted video of an in-house moderation tool attesting to Malviya's privileges.

Soon, numerous flaws were spotted in the evidence that pointed to fabrication and skeptics, including former Facebook whistle-blowers, began to cast doubts. Afterwards, as both the experts denied involvement with The Wire, the reports were subject to an internal review and retracted; later, the publication conceded its failure to verify the evidence and charged one of their involved reporters with deceit. The developments also brought back focus on the publication's investigative coverage of an app called Tek Fog — supposedly used by the ruling party to spread disinformation and harass dissenters — from about a few months ago, that the same reporter(s) had been responsible for; they were simultaneously retracted.

Commentators have expressed concern on how the fiasco might dent the credibility of one of the few media organizations in India who have bothered to provide critical coverage of the Modi regime.

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe a line in the end about Malviya's reaction and intention to sue? Vedaanty (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Crystal-ball territory. We will include details under litigation as and when Malviya sues The Wire, which can be tomorrow or a month later. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah - it appears that Malviya has filed a FIR. Not acquainted with the legal system in India - do you need to lodge a FIR to initiate legal proceedings? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

An FIR is the precursor to a criminal case. Now the police will investigate the case and decide whether to move forward or no. If he filed the FIR then he is definitely serious about moving forward. Vedaanty (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This one can work, maybe could do with a bit more trimming and a couple points; IT Cell is preferable to Social Media wing and reporter(s) shouldn't have the (s), as far as we know there's an overlap of one reporter. I'd suggest including it in "reception" but a "tech journalism" section under "content" (which would have to be overall expanded eventually) can work as well. One sidenote, such a section should include their reporting on Pegasus Project as well where they have quite a heavy involvement. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Decent objections - accepted.

Did The Wire had much to do with Pegasus? Will have to check. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, they were the Indian partner. Will write a section. ~ TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Version 3

On 10 October 2022, The Wire alleged Meta (formerly Facebook) to have provided Amit Malviya, the head of the Information Technology Cell of the incumbent ruling party in India, with the ability to delete any post on Instagram bypassing the usual content moderation system. Facing Meta's categorical denials, the publication went on to to publish an "internal message" from Andy Stone, the Communications Director, expressing frustration at the leak of Malviya's privileges and a detailed report that not only featured email-communication from two anonymous "experts" verifying the integrity of Stone's email but also had a semi-redacted video of an in-house moderation tool attesting to Malviya's privileges.

Soon, numerous flaws were spotted in the evidence that pointed to fabrication and skeptics, including former Facebook whistle-blowers, began to cast doubts. Afterwards, as both the experts denied involvement with The Wire, the reports were subject to an internal review and retracted; later, the publication would concede its failure to verify the evidence and accuse the reporter, Devesh Kumar, of deceit. The developments also brought back focus on the publication's investigative coverage of an app called Tek Fog — supposedly used by the ruling party to spread disinformation and harass dissenters — from about a few months ago, that Kumar had been responsible for; they were put under editorial review.

Commentators have expressed concern on how the fiasco might dent the credibility of one of the few media organizations in India who have bothered to provide critical coverage of the Modi regime.

TrangaBellam (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Inserted Kumar's name since The Wire is not shying away.

A complaint was lodged against Mr. [Devesh] Kumar, who supplied The Wire with fabricated material on Meta and Instagram, with the intent to harm The Wire and its employees and damage its reputation, [Siddharth Vardarajan] added. “We registered a complaint under IPC sections cheating, forgery and IT Act,” he said. A senior police officer, however, said that no FIR has been registered yet.
— The Hindu Bureau (2022-10-29). "FIR registered against The Wire on 'fake news' allegation by BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X.

TrangaBellam (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

New update with a lot more info:

The impression Kidambi gathered was that Devesh Kumar seemed highly disturbed mentally”. Yikes.. When will the above version be pushed to the main page? Vedaanty (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vedaanty You can do it yourself. Or ping any administrator for intervention. 103.51.138.251 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The update is interesting for gossip but of no use from an encyclopedic vantage - NOTNEWS territory. How long before Chau issues a denial? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Print probably tried contacting him, Newslaundary did too. He hasn't responded. It's been 2 days since his name was first mentioned. High time to push this onto the page and update if he responds? Vedaanty (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But please cite appropriate high quality sources after each line. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Done.. Probably worth it to add a line about this in the opening para of this page as well? Vedaanty (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thats a good idea. Go ahead and add in the lead. 103.51.139.161 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Two tidbits

From The Hindu:

• The Wire, has filed a complaint against one of its former consultants, Devesh Kumar. Apparently not an "employee".
• Mr. Malviya, however, had not mentioned Mr. Kumar in the complaint he filed on Saturday.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it odd for The Wire to have reposed so much faith in an individual who was not even a regular employee. Kumar was apparently the only one that had met the supposed sources in Meta. Yet, Jahnavi Sen as well Siddharth Varadarajan put their names as the coauthors! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Scroll notes Kumar to be a "researcher". TrangaBellam (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You wonder if a body shop was involved as well! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, one of my RL friends emailed me this blogpost. Came across this? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Nor am I familiar with the cringe langugae, I am afraid. But if somebody is claiming that they did a hit job on The Wire, that is hardly news. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sane commentary

Zhang, Sophie (2022-12-01). "What the Wire-Meta saga means for the future of tech-reporting". The Caravan.

Excerpts:

I do not think that The Wire as an organisation was complicit in this, if nothing else, because their behaviour was not consistent with that assumption. For instance, The Wire provided the identities of the experts to other people to verify. If you knew that these were forged, it is unlikely you would do that—you would make up an excuse about their safety and say, “We can’t tell you who it is,” or something like that.

I think a lot of Indian outlets in general, put a lot less effort into tech reporting, compared to Western outlets. In May and June this year, when I worked with several reporters on my disclosures regarding the inauthentic network that was associated with Vinod Sonkar, it seemed that many or most of the reporters were not tech-focused journalists. This meant that many of them were also encountering technical difficulties in opening a ZIP file—I think I was asked by around six reporters about that.

I think it has made me more sceptical of previous The Wire reporting at least, and I think The Wire has some ways to go in restoring its credibility [..] It might be the case that at a small news outlet like The Wire, there are not enough resources or journalists with technical expertise to check the work of a reporter, which is an obvious vulnerability. In the future I think I would be slightly less trusting of an outlet that doubles down [..] I think this saga with The Wire does effectively increase the barriers to tech reporting.

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

'Original Research'

An edit, concerning an incident where a factual distortion by The Wire caused violence and death, was removed by User:Tayi Arajakate, who claimed it was 'Mostly Original Research.' The removed text, which can be read here, was derived from a highly detailed Indian Express Article, which was cited. Every statement written in that section can be verified from either the Indian Express Article, or the original The Wire article.

WP:OR defines Original Research, in the very opening line, as texts for which no reliable, published sources exist.

So, why, exactly, would a text with a cited published source which is held in very good standing to be reliable, be 'Original Research?' I'm afraid I cannot answer. So here's me trying to get consensus on whether this is Original Research or Not. LΞVIXIUS💬 18:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging other users in the page's edit history: User:TrangaBellam User:Vedaanty, User:Hagennos, User:CapnJackSp, User:DFlhb LΞVIXIUS💬 18:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You cannot use images in signature. The report might have caused violence but nowhere does the Indian Express article suggest that The Wire's editorial policies were at fault or that they spread fake news or something like that. So, why shall this be in the reception section? There is nothing to see here. Do not ping me again. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

My signature literally doesn't use an image, try copying it. Am I the only one actually making sure a Wikipedia policy applies before using it?

Anyway, now that we're past all that, the section does not imply The Wire deliberately spread fake news either. The article does however, by its very nature, imply an editorial blunder, considering they misrepresented someone as a member of RSS, which lead to violence and an attack on an RSS building, but I don't see why we're discussing that, considering none of this would qualify it as 'Original Research.'

Feel free to ping me if you wish to. LΞVIXIUS💬 19:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Content isn't written on the basis of what you think an article implies by its "very nature". You need sources that directly and explicitly support material such as that they "misrepresented someone as a member of RSS, which lead to violence ..." which the article does not do. These article only reports on the RSS, etc making denials. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems like you text matched the source, and his statements were correctly attributed to him rather than the newspaper. WP:INDIANEXP is considered reliable. The incident seems due, and I spot no original research. So I support this addition. Just one problem, your middle paragraph should also have a citation to the Indian Express; citations don't carry over across paragraphs. DFlhb (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Kinda overlooked that, thanks for bringing it to my attention. LΞVIXIUS💬 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Much of the text had no apparent in-line citations and part of it was cited to a primary source so I called it mostly OR. Regardless even with your explaination, the central premise of your inclusion is still based on original research or rather it's unverifiable.

The Indian Express article doesn't say anything along the lines of it being an "editorial blunder", your present justification for the inclusion or accuses The Wire of "causing violence" as you have done in your inclusion. Nor does it verify that they committed a "factual distortion" or "misinterpreted" anything, these are simply your opinions which you have pushed into the text as if they were facts by editorialising the attribution of an involved party's (the interviewee) claims. The claims being that the interviewee, Jagdamba Mall has no relation to the RSS and that he expressed his personal opinion which was distorted. In your text, you state that he "clarified" these things.

Devoid of independent reliable sources that directly and explicitly support these assertion, this is an inappropriate inclusion (Not to mention it would need coverage from more than one source). If one looks for other secondary coverage one would instead find numerous other sources both before and after the incident referring to him as a veteran RSS organiser/leader/thinker (e.g Indian Express, Financial Express, Eastern Mirror, Deccan Herald, etc etc). In fact it wasn't even denied that he was a member in the initial reaction to the incident, the claim at first was that he was apparently not authorised as a spokesperson. And it's not even clear what he claims was distorted in his statement and no source says anything else about it.

The only secondary coverage that directly relates to these assertions is an editorial by Patricia Mukhim, the editor-in-chief of The Shillong Times (the primary regional newspaper in the Northeast) which doesn't even entertain their claims and instead wonders whether it was the RSS trying to prepare the ground or the government testing the waters while maintaining plausible deniability. Most secondary sources that have covered the agitation haven't even bothered to mention where the interview was given and just left it as "media reports" so even an appropriate rendition of the incident would be undue for inclusion.

In the end, it's amply clear that these assertions have no basis and has not been taken seriously by any independent reliable source. The Indian Express is usually a high quality newspaper, but all they have reported on is nothing more than plain old denial by politicians, of which there are dime a dozen and it certainly doesn't belong here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph also didn't have a citation, in particular the statement: Jagdamba, was repeatedly quoted as an RSS member in the article suggesting a 'separate developing authority' in Assam and a 500 crore grant to develop ten districts in the state. The Indian Express didn't say "repeatedly". That is certainly OR.

1. If you search for "Dima Hassao district Nagalim" the top hit is a Scroll.in article, which has quite a different story to tell.

2. The Indian Express story was the second hit, but its credibility is suspect from the get go, as it claims an "interview" led to the trouble. Nobody else said there was an interview. And The Wire story wasn't an interview at all.

3. The rest of your write-up is made up of denials by Mal and the RSS, which carry no weight whatsoever. RSS even denied that Nathuram Godse was its member, and his own brother rubbished it. It was part of the requirement of Sardar Patel's lifting of the ban on RSS for it to maintain membership records. But it has never done so. Not even its pracharaks are listed and published anywhere. So who knows? They can deny anything whenever they want.

4. But it is known that Mal was "of the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram" (VKA) in 2008, and it is known that the RSS loans out its pracharaks to VKA, e.g., Swami Aseemanand. And, Mal was publishing articles even in 2021, calling himself a "veteran RSS activist". So, the denials carry no weight and have no place on Wikpedia.

5. As to the responsibility of The Wire in "causing violence", a local news agency reported that the agitation was launched "in protest against the Government’s ‘failure’ to issue clarification regarding the media reports that Dima Hasao, a hill district of Assam, would be included in Greater Nagalim". So no way can the blame be placed at The Wire's door.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Since we are in the page of listing the controversies of wire reporting, to have an NPOV inclusion of this content is warranted. Reading through the articles, Indian Express is a reputable source, but Scroll.in which is quoted as being the first in the search is not considered reputable. If the original comment has been modified by the original author then that needs to be corrected than removing the entire post. Hagennos^Talk 15:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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.

---

I propose merging Tek Fog into The Wire (India). TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer): There are now a number of sources indicating the Tek Fog thing was just made up by the Devesh guy and the Wire editors and others ate it up due to partisanship. The whole thing is better discussed on the Wire's page. This merge proposal can parallel to the drafting of the paragraph. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as undue weight. The Tek Fog article is lengthy; regardless of what this turns out to be, all of the encyclopedic material cannot be accommodated here. A standalone is appropriate, with a summary here per WP:SS. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is nothing particularly encyclopaedic in that article. It's a show of Wikipedia's recentism bias, full of crufty nonsense based on now retracted, discredited stories. The section detailing Wire's investigation can't stand, being based on retracted sources. None of the organisation listed in the "organisation involved" were involved in anything, since the thing doesn't exist. None of the victims in the victim section were victims of this thing, since it doesn't exist. The reaction section is the only usable part left, a display of partisan hysteria, and can be easily condensed a lot and summarised here in context. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  The retractionreview of the story shouldn't change the length of that article very much. Certainly some information about the investigation needs to be trimmed, but conversely there's information about the investigation of the investigation, and any fallout thereof. All of which still needs to be summarized in the main article, not presented blow-by-blow. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is not retracted. It is under editorial review. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Quite right, amending: I meant "retraction" loosely, in that it's been removed from the website, but as it has a technical meaning I've clarified above. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Vanamonde93. It would be quite UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: Agree with TryKid, the Tek Fog article seems way out of proportion to its relevance, probably due to recentism. If the whole Tek Fog thing indeed turns out to be made up, then it does not merit its own article and should be merged (say in a couple weeks once the dust settles). Also, the names of the contributors to the Tek Fog article seem to be very similar to the those on this talk page. Arceus775 (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly, Unequivocally, SupportThe Tek Fog article is needlessly convoluted and intricat and rather loquacious.It needs to be summarised and merged. Furthermore, after the withdrawal of The Wire's stories, I do not cerebrate that it even meets the notability guideline to be an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria Bucephalous (talk • contribs) 11:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Vedaanty (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: see my thread on WP:RSN. The Tek Fog article is indeed currently in limbo. Even a reinstatement of the story wouldn't necessarily mean that it was accurate, without corroboration from other outlets. Although The Wire's claims received secondary coverage, the allegations themselves did not (since no other outlet managed to corroborate them). It's too early to decide whether to merge. I recommend waiting for the internal investigation to finish, and for other outlets to dissect the story. To address other arguments: yes, Tek Fog is lengthy, but the criteria on whether it deserves its own article are laid out at WP:GNG, and have nothing to do with its length. I explain in my WP:RSN comment why it doesn't meet the GNG. An extremely comparable news story is Bloomberg's The Big Hack, which was strenuously denied by all involved parties, (edit: and was practically universally condemned as flawed by experts and other journalists; one of Bloomberg's sources also came forward and said Bloomberg misinterpreted what they said) and yet was never retracted. That story was international news, yet doesn't have its own article. A better question than a merge, is whether to delete it altogether, since obviously we'd throw away 80% of Tek Fog in the event of a merge. The question of whether to mention this on The Wire (India) is separate. DFlhb (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC), updated 02:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  I concur, it is indeed pertinent to fundamentally question whether the Tek Fog article meets the notability guidelines. I withal agree with you that it is not secondarily corroborated so I cerebrate that the article must be deleted. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

FULL SUPPORT: Most of the reasons opposing it here are because of its length which is not logical at all as it is up to the reader to decide whether or not he likes to be engaged in a long-read or just scroll past. Tek Fog is one of the biggest blunders by THE WIRE which questions the validity of its editorial process and the public ought be fully informed about it. Not merging this article with THE WIRE would in short imply that wikipedia has substantial reporting bias. Aftarsid (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed !!! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• No - Once GNG is secured, it cannot be lost. We have hundreds of articles on hoaxes — which were once held to be true — and, at worst, the article in question will find its place in such august company. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Says who ? Why can't GNG be lost once secured ? Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  When I say it doesn't meet WP:GNG, I also argue that it never did. Neither did "The Big Hack", to establish a close comparison that never had a Wikipedia article. There is no independent or secondary coverage of the claims, which would be necessary for it to have ever met WP:GNG. And while we cover numerous hoaxes, they have all been covered as hoaxes in secondary sources, too. Neither the basic Tek Fog claims, not their nature as a possible hoax, have been covered in secondary sources, so we can currently neither have the article as-is, or have an article presenting it as a hoax. Neither of those options would meet WP:GNG.

WP:ATD is relevant here. We can't even keep the article as a stub, since that's reserved for notable articles that fail WP:V or WP:POV. If the article's claims are substantiated in secondary sources in the future (therefore meeting GNG), the article can always be undeleted. DFlhb (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC), it should be merged, per WP:ATD-M, updated 02:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Then, you can launch a AfD. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm explained my reasoning for waiting, above. DFlhb (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC), updated 02:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently literate on WP policies to judge on the above viewpoints but since the Government of India itself was implicated and moved, it should be reported. Aftarsid (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

This source alone is cited 6 times despite Bloomberg retracting it. Wire's retracted reporting has also been cited and all additional sources discussing Tek Fog discuss based on The Wires reporting. Either the page needs to be rewritten extensively to reflect the reality of the situation or it simply needs to be merged with the reporting being discussed here.

Regardless, immediate action is required as that page basically has no sources right now. Vedaanty (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed we will have to rely on coverage about retraction. Aftarsid (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed this was an opinion article; it's very disturbing that it was even used by us as sourcing in the first place. Jeez. I take back my "pro-waiting" arguments above, after reflecting more, I think immediate action is needed, either merging or deleting.

I think this merge proposal is malformed: it doesn't meet any criteria for merging, but does meet criteria 6, 7 and 8 of the deletion policy.

Merging is a strange idea anyway; nothing can be kept as-is. Most editors here seem to be discussing whether The Wire (India) should mention Tek Fog; it already does, and that's a completely separate discussion from a merge, since the material would need to be brand new. As I say above, we cannot currently add much to this article beyond what's already mentioned, since The Wire's removal and Bloomberg's retraction weren't widely covered; nor was Tek Fog covered as a hoax in reliable sources.

I'll ask at Requests for Closure if admins agree with my reasoning that a merge is not the appropriate step to discuss. If this discussion is closed, I'll nominate Tek Fog at AfD. DFlhb (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I've thought about it more; some sections could definitely be kept, like the resulting reactions, investigations, and lawsuit; I think they could be trimmed very significantly without losing their encyclopedic value. Since I no longer think this is malformed, I'm now voting strongly support to the main proposal, based on my WP:GNG reasoning above. The debacle is not notable enough for its own article since the removal of the Tek Fog stories hasn't been significantly covered, but it would be due in this article. DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Too much relevant material to merge in, merits a standalone article. Regardless of whether the original investigation turns out to flawed or baseless, the larger story around the investigation has been covered extensively and continues to develop. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  A point by point rebuttal :

  1) Most of the "material" in the article is circumlocutory and non-encyclopaedic in nature. It can very easily be summarised to just a couple of paragraphs.

  2) What does a statement like "Regardless of whether the original investigation turns out to flawed or baseless, the larger story around the investigation has been covered extensively and continues to develop" even mean ?, if the story is proven false or has been placed under review by the news organisation that has published it, all the other coverage and developments automatically become irrelevant. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see how we'd end up with too much material; the only sections we would keep would be Reactions, and "Removal of stories" (recently renamed). Most of the reactions section is pointless political gesticulation; practically the only things to keep are the political reactions, which could be summarized very briefly, keeping only the ones that attest to the story's political impact; and the Ministry's inability to confirm the app's existence. Do you think we should keep anything else? DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The Tek Fog controversy has been covered by sources across the board and is notable enough to warrant its own standalone article. LΞVIXIUS💬 11:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  YES! Aftarsid (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• For those proposing AfD: Tek Fog page may be able to stand deletion if supported by this article from THE WIRE which is still live, somehow.

https://thewire.in/government/tmc-mp-derek-o-brien-standing-committe-home-affairs-tek-fog Aftarsid (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support : The Wire has retracted the report, so has bloomberg. It should be included in a “controversy” section IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment:Instead of naming the section "Controversy" , it can be named as "Events" all major incidents can be written in that section under subsections . Namely Tek Fog, Meta. Pegasus etc Safoora Ham Burrger (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC) (WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC))
• Support : The Wire seems to have lost its credibility in reporting where its political/ideological bias seems to have preceded the genuine reporting. To err is human but to defend it blindly until it was proven to be utter false is something not permissible in journalism. The Tek Fog page is so lengthy and may give a false impression to the reader that it is a true story as suggested by the Wire. So, it is better to merge. Perhaps, it may be good to caution the editors in the Wikipedia not to use references from the Wire and opt for some reliable ones. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  True that! Aftarsid (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  True indeed !! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Safoora Ham Burrger (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC) (WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC))

• Oppose : This article is too long to be merged into the Wire page. This page has become a random collection of Newsitems and goes against WP:NOTNEWS. I would even propose AfD this article and then have a summary of this under Controversies section in the Wire Article Hagennos^Talk 01:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  I shared that exact line of thinking above, further arguing that this move request was invalid, and expressed support for an AfD. The main idea that changed my mind was that we could keep a few bits as-is and merge them here. We could throw away 95% of the page, keep 5%, and that would still be a merge; and a merge would result in a redirect from Tek Fog -> The Wire (India), whereas a delete wouldn't. What are your thoughts? I'm open to new arguments or to switching back to my original position. DFlhb (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  I support that thought from DFIhb Hagennos^Talk 20:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support : The publication itself is doubting it's reliability. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support : This has been retracted by The Wire, so only a brief summary should be added on The Wire page, that's about it. Some editors are opposing it saying the article is too large, but then again most of the content has been proven wrong, so all of it doesn't need to be merged any way. Coderzombie (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support : The Tek Fog article was a piece of "investigative journalism" by The Wire, which wasn't independently verified by other media sources, which is why all of them ended up retracting their articles about it. There's no reason why it cannot be merged with The Wire's Wikipedia page with a section about it. If notability of a news report was the sole criterion for its Wikipedia page to exist, then The Wire - Meta feud should have a page of its own, given how widely it was covered by international media. —Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are times when substantial errors published by newspapers, such as Rolling Stone's "A Rape on Campus", warrant inclusion in an article of their own. This subject passes WP:GNG, but WP:NOPAGE notes that it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context, so passing GNG alone is not per se a reason to refuse a merge. That being said, I do think that there's enough coverage of the editorial failures of The Wire in this respect that one can write an article about it—just as we have one for "A Rape on Campus". But we're going to need to change the article structure, and some sections are going to need to be blown up entirely. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Red-tailed hawk, I agree with your general assessment, but I don't think it's correct to say that there is enough coverage to justify a standalone page. Much of the coverage of the retraction of the Tek Fog story was clubbed with/in light of the coverage of the separate Meta story its retraction, which itself doesn't have a separate page, and which I don't think meets GNG either. Tek Fog perhaps did meet GNG back then, but the dubious nature of the sources, which is now apparent, should mean that it be treated on Wikipedia the same way news sources now treat it—as a footnote to/part of the general failing of the Wire on technology issues which resulted in the dubious Meta story. This stuff is not at the level of A Rape on Campus, which created much larger controversies and "coverage of the coverage". I would have preferred a stronger enforcement of WP:NOPAGE and WP:10YT to shunt things like this into larger articles from the start; it is only much more obvious now that there is no reason to have a separate page. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support The subject is now wholly described as an instance of misreporting by this otherwise reliable source. It is best to merge here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: That the paper retracted the material is immaterial. The subject is the controversy that spun out of that, and this page is substantial. To merge it into the Wire page, which is about the same size, would simply bloat that article with undue material on this controversy and immediately beg the question of why the material wasn't split off. It's due here, but would be grossly undue there. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I just finished some clean up the Tek Fog article significantly, as listed in the talk page. The diff of changes is linked. Any closer to this merge, please consider the above while applying appropriate weightage to the arguments above. I also note that I have no preference to whether this article should be standalone or merged. Soni (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2023 (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.