Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78

ANI defamation case

Some of you might know that Asian News International (ANI) is suing Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court for defamation. The first hearing was on 20 August, which doesn't seem to have been covered in the press. Now we learn that the High Court ordered Wikimedia to divulge the identity of the editors within 2 weeks, and when Wikimedia failed to comply, held it in contempt.[1] If anybody knows what happened in the 20-August hearing, please let me know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. What is ANI? There used to be a UNI, or was it UPI, or both? Any connection? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
UPI is American. My bad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I expanded the name above and added a wikilink. See also WP:RSPANI.
An earlier article in The Indian Express points out that ANI is treating Wikipedia as a "social media intermediary" (like twitter, for example), which is just a "transmitter" of information.[2] That means that the editors who wrote the content are the original "authors", the real targets that ANI intends to sue. Wikimedia looks like it is out of depth in figuring out the Indian law. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:) Presumably, these editors have cited sources for said content. What did the court say about the cited authors, especially if they are Indians? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I guess the case hasn't gotten to that point yet. That is why I am asking, what happened on the 20th August hearing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
On the hearing held on August 20, 2024, in the ANI defamation case against Wikipedia, the following key events took place:
Wikimedia's Appearance: Representatives from Wikimedia appeared in court. ANI contended that Wikipedia had not disputed the involvement of three individuals, who were also defendants in the case, in editing the contentious content.
Court's Directive: The Delhi High Court directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details of the three individuals involved in the case within two weeks. This information was demanded because ANI had accused Wikipedia of defaming them by allowing edits that labeled the news agency as a "propaganda tool" of the Indian government.
ANI's Complaint: ANI reinforced its claim that Wikipedia was permitting defamatory content and sought ₹2 crore in damages along with the removal of the alleged defamatory statements.
Contempt Petition Filed: ANI filed a contempt petition against Wikipedia for not complying with the court’s earlier order to disclose the required information.
In other words : Wikimedia Foundation was ordered to present a representative in court due to their failure to provide the requested subscriber details of individuals involved in editing ANI's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's legal team argued that the platform's content is created and managed by volunteer editors and that they do not interfere directly with edits. However, the court was displeased with Wikipedia's non-compliance and delay in submitting the required information. Justice Navin Chawla warned that continued non-compliance could result in the platform being blocked in India. The words were "I will impose contempt...It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia...Earlier also you people have taken this argument. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India." The court issued a contempt notice to Wikimedia and directed a representative to appear at the next hearing scheduled for October 25, 2024​ DangalOh (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Source please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Information is available through multiple Indian news sources. I just summarised it. However, if you are referring to "the sources" that Wikipedia deems infallible and most reliable, I am not certain. The objective here is not to introduce this material into Wikipedia with citations to further any agenda. The intent was simply to inform. Whether one chooses to believe it or not is not my concern; that responsibility falls on Wikimedia and the editors involved. This issue extends beyond ANI; it affects all Indian news sources that do not align with leftist, globalist, or Islamist ideologies. Funnily enough, ANI is labeled as a propaganda tool for the Indian government, regardless of whether it's the BJP or Congress in power. It's even a further step towards an anti-India bias, not just anti-right wing. Notably, the primary source used to defame ANI was Alt News, run by Mohammed Zubair. Unfortunately, I do not have Alt News reporting on this matter. Whether you choose to accept this information or not is entirely up to you; it is not my concern. If you have any other contradictory information from 'most reliable' sources, then please share or i would request you to at least give some benefit of the doubt. DangalOh (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The names of defendants 2, 3, and 4 in the ANI defamation case against Wikipedia were not publicly disclosed in the available reports from August 20, 2024. However, it was noted that these three individuals were involved in making the contested edits on the Wikipedia page of ANI, and they are subject to a court order requiring Wikipedia to disclose their subscriber details. ANI contended that these individuals were not administrators on the platform, which led to the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to reveal their identities within two weeks. DangalOh (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The case was listed yesterday (case history link) but the order is not (yet?) available (link). Is there an update from yesterday? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
There has been no specific update on the order from the September 5 hearing that I am aware of as of now. The developments I initially mentioned to Kautilya are the latest updates, especially Justice Navin Chawla's vocal warning. I will keep my eyes and ears open. This situation could seriously escalate. I would personally hate to see Wikipedia get banned in India. India has the largest English-speaking population in the world, especially as a second or third language. A ban could affect access to a valuable source of information for millions, and it would certainly impact Wikipedia’s presence in one of the largest user bases in the world. I don’t know if it will affect Wikipedia Hindi as well. Only time will tell. DangalOh (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
India certainly won't be the first to censor Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but India banning Wikipedia would seriously be impactful. Most of the countries that previously censored Wikipedia are not even English-speaking. We are talking about one of the biggest user bases of Wikipedia here. The impact will be felt if such a scenario occurs.
Unlike other countries that have restricted Wikipedia, India is not only one of the largest contributors in terms of users but also generates a significant amount of content, including in multiple regional languages. This would create a ripple effect, especially on the availability of regional knowledge and the diversity of perspectives online. DangalOh (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
ANI contended that these individuals were not administrators on the platform, which led to the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to reveal their identities within two weeks. I'd be curious to see what the reasoning there was. Why is it relevant whether the editors were administrators or not? jlwoodwa (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you mean the comment in OnManorama?[3]
Since we don't have news coverage of what happened on 20 August (which is itself quite suspicious), the newspapers have been trying to reconstruct what happened on that day. This one is ANI's version of what happened. I guess that the ANI's meaning of "administrators" is Wikimedia-appointed staff, not "administrators" in our sense. All members of the community would be "volunteer editors" from a legal standpoint, and they would need to represent themselves in case of a legal suit.
I will try to find some right-wing commentaries on Wikipedia which give us an idea of how they think.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Post them here if you find some — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Couldn't find any reputed articles opinionating on Wiki by reputed right-wing circles like RSS and VHP, but few organisation (Hindu Raksha Dal for example) are of the opinion that Wikimedia foundation is a CIA front etc... VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The crux of the case as far as I could read is that the editors did not quote proper sources and other citations while doing so. If they did, the defamation case would have been against the source rather than Wikipedia. It is always advised to edit Wikipedia by citing proper reliable sources rather than framing the self-made opinion of the editors themselves. The job of the editors is to culminate the information available across various platforms and put it together so that readers can obtain it in one place. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so. The sources are fine. ANI is trying to portray the article as representing Wikipedia's own "opinion", and, so far, the Delhi High Court is siding with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
This is what every anti-Wikipedia person in India does, especially when it’s related to the BJP. They don’t look at the sources; they just accuse Wikipedia of making things up. But they actually know that Wikipedia cites sources—they just refuse to acknowledge it. Because, their motive is always to discredit Wikipedia’s name. GrabUp - Talk 11:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

You probably pinged the wrong @Doug Weller account — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. As this Wikipedia is part of the Foundation they are suing them. I can’t imagine they would reveal any names. That would set a terrible precedent. They haven’t revealed no names before. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
If that happened and they disclosed the name, it would be a really big issue for Indian editors. Others might also start filing cases, such as OpIndia, for writing that it spread ‘fake news’. The interesting part is that the editors who added that part may have left Wikipedia forever, and one day, the court could come to their door, saying, ‘Go to jail or pay a fine.’ GrabUp - Talk 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely that Wikipedia will disclose any real names, and I seriously doubt whether Wikipedia even possesses the actual identities of the individuals involved. What could they potentially share? IP ranges, fabricated usernames, or random email addresses, which are not even required for creating new accounts these days. In the rare event that Wikipedia does decide to share IP addresses or ranges (which is highly improbable), a legal notice to the ISP would be necessary to obtain the exact subscriber details tied to the specific IP address at the time of the edit. If the individual was using a VPN service, however, this would significantly complicate matters, making identification nearly impossible.
Moreover, Wikipedia is known for its staunch commitment to protecting user privacy. In this case, it is likely that Wikipedia itself, rather than the individual editors or even the sources cited, would bear responsibility considering wikipedia wont reveal anything. As I understand Indian law, Wikipedia, as an intermediary, is primarily accountable for what transpires on its platform — whether it concerns the sources its community deems reliable, those it disqualifies, or how it handles users who revert edits to a preferred version or block dissenting views. This also includes the types of communities it allows to flourish within itself and which it systematically restricts. My understanding is that the issue here, compared to platforms like X (formerly Twitter), is that users on Wikipedia are often exposed to a single narrative, with certain viewpoints censored to push specific agendas (referred to as POV pushing in Wikipedia’s terms). You even have to adhere to a NPOV, based on sources that are more or less ideologically similar, as many sources from the other side are outright dismissed as unreliable by the community or removed by mob rule (coincidence that only one side is most of the time considered correct?). The fact which makes wiki more important is that Wikipedia, unlike X, is an educational platform involved in shaping future minds. This does not bode well for Wikipedia’s operations in India. They may be required to pay fines to continue their operations, or possibly face some form of a ban.
However, I doubt that any individual editor will be identified. What if the editors are foreign nationals? Will they face restrictions on entering India, as was the case recently with a British-Indian writer who was barred from entry? Only time will tell. Wikipedia may be reverting to its roots. It was initially meant for Western audiences, and it might end up being read only by Western audiences in the end. And I suppose that's fine. DangalOh (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Funnily enough, when I clicked on this section, I was actually expecting it to be about defamation on WP:ANI. That poor acronym… jlwoodwa (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • And now... Netflix[4] What is going on with ANI? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    This is the one that I find funny - ANI complaining about someone using third party material, which they quite frequently do themselves. "PTI advocate Rajshekhar Rao said that there was “no apology needed” and that the video was a third party content. He said that it is “a case of pot calling the kettle black”. Media lawfare. Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order, The Hindu, 5 September 2024.
  2. ^ Khadija Khan, Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia?, The Indian Express, 11 July 2024.
  3. ^ Don’t like India? Don’t work here: Delhi HC warns Wikipedia after non-compliance in ANI case, OnManorama, 5 September 2024.
  4. ^ "Indian news agency ANI sues Netflix for using its content in hijack drama". Reuters. 9 September 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.

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

Hello Noticeboard for India-related topics:

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

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

We hope to see you there!

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

Port Blair

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

Another Allahabad problem surfaces. If the powers that be have a go at Renaming of cities in India#Proposed changes be ready for a regular occurence. Gotitbro (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Exactly Gotitbro. Also people, see [2]. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Remind the editors about WP:NAMECHANGE, expecially "When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change." and ask them to help show that this has been done. Clearly local media would be doing this, but also India-wide and international media as well. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
You must be joking, right? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
And don't call me Shirley Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hi @VKG1985, I read the Draft: Ravi Modi, and I have some thoughts. I typed in "Ravi Modi Vedant Fashions" in google and had a quick look. Ravi Modi seems to be somewhat notable. It does look like there is some coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. However, some of those sources look promotional. My advice, looking at the draft of the article and googling him, it is obvious Ravi Modi is notable for his success in business, therefore you should expand the section on his career. You can add more notable information and then reference the information with other reliable secondary sources. Make sure these sources do properly cover him though (see: WP:SIGCOV). MohReddy (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks MohReddy, I have searched as guided & made changes accordingly. Have submitted for review. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Team, I added WP Discrimination and WP Terrorism project in Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, but, User:Rasnaboy has removed it citing there has been an discussion that took place last month in the Talk:Narendra Modi#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination. Their I noticed @Abecedare: said that he is against removing these projects' templates systematically from all wikipedia article talkpages. @Rasnaboy has already removed wikiprojects (discrimination, terrorism, crime) from the some the articles which are mentioned in the talk page of Narendra Modi. My argument is there has been no consensus on removing these projects from all articles particularly related to BJP-RSS-Hindutva. But, @Rasnaboy has been systemically removed it from all these related to BJP-RSS-Hindutva. Moreover, article like Violence against Muslims in independent India, Violence against Christians in India, Hindu terrorism point out that right-wing Hindu organization who follow Hindutva / Hindu nationalist ideology are the main culprit against minorities in India. Shouldn't we go on a case by case basis rather than going all hog. Some of the WP projects are in active or semi-active status hence editors who are member of these projects can help do collaborative editing and contribute to these articles. WP Discrimination was in an inactive mode but now it is in semi-active mode. So editors who are members of these projects can contribute to these articles. And even if the project become inactive in future they might become active so new editors who become members of such project can contribute. And what is interesting is if you read the articles of organizations who follow the ideology of Hindutva / Hindu nationalism have commited some heinous crimes against minority communities in India and they're well sourced. I would like to know view from some of the experinced editors @Vanamonde93: @Doug Weller: @RegentsPark: @Fowler&fowler: @Valereee: @C.Fred: @S Marshall: @Girth Summit:. Thanks 2409:40E0:44:FEF6:C02D:6A0A:B8C4:D3EB (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Both of those WikiProjects are inactive. What's the benefit of adding them to this article's talk page?—S Marshall T/C 07:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    Hi @S Marshall: WP Discrimination Project is in semi-active status; earlier it was in inactive status. WP terrorism is inactive right now, but in the future it might be in active mode. WP Crime is a very active project. Point I'm making is that if WP projects are added, even if they remain inactive, semi-active, or active, editors who are members of such projects will be able to contribute to the respective articles, and if WP projects aren't added, then members won't be able to contribute to these articles. Today if some projects are inactive tomorrow they might be in active mode. New editors who have interest in these projects will contribute to these articles. Moreover, in the main article, the discriminatory action against the minority community is clearly mentioned, and they are well documented and well sourced. Hence, adding such WP projects won't be a waste; rather, it will be beneficial for such articles.--2409:40E0:55:459B:111D:B737:4409:CDA2 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    Are you adding those Wikiprojects to attract editors interested in improving the pages? Or are you adding them because you think that by listing Wikiproject:Terrorism, you are somehow tarnishing the image of the RSS? The latter isn't appropriate; the former seems to be a bit of a stretch. I personally could not care less which Wikiprojects are represented on the talk, but edit-warring over it is silly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I defer to the superior wisdom of all the others you have pinged. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi @Vanamonde93: How come adding WP projects can tarnish someone's image? It is an utterly ridiculous argument. The purpose of the WP project is where editors who are members of such projects would be able to contribute to the articles; their purpose is to add value. Moreover, I'm not adding anything unrelated projects, considering the article where heinous crime has been properly described, particularly where discrimanatory action and crime have been described. WP Discrimination and WP Crime can certainly be added; WP Terroism can be debatable. Thanks--2409:40E0:5F:620F:45E:A913:769F:E328 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    If other editors aren't objecting to my proposal, then I will add WP Discrimination and WP Crime Project to the respective Hindutva-related articles. And in articles where right-wing Hindu organisations are involved in terrorist activities, then WP Terrorism, I will add. Sir you can also share your views. @Jimbo Wales:. Thanks & Regards--2409:40E0:1002:F56C:D5EF:D258:716F:AD97 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think the IP user is missing the point regarding WikiProjects. Going by the logic of the IP user, they should also add, for example, WP-discrimination in several Indian parties articles such as Indian National Congress article (because we have well-sourced section on dynasticism), WP-corruption in Trinamool Congress, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party and their members (we have sourced claims in these articles), WP-Terrorism in Tablighi Jamaat or Hamas, and so forth. Doing these is akin to adding WP-Hinduism in Narendra Modi article (see Talk:Narendra_Modi#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination), again per the IP user there. While similar articles like Muslim nationalism in South Asia do not have WP-discrimination (or other WPs), and even the talk pages of articles like Hamas insist in using these terms with care/avoiding per policy, the IP user(s) appear to conveniently ignore these in Hindu nationalism-related articles. As User:Vanamonde hinted, that'd only appear as the ulterior intention of the editor to tarnish the image of the person/party/organization. It now appears like POV-pushing to me. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rasnaboy: First of all, the WP-Corruption project is a dead project; forget being in an inactive status. So there is absolutely no point in adding a project; however, if you want to add a dead project, then go ahead. Secondly, in the Hamas article, the WP Crime and WP Terrorism Project has been added. Please check carefully. And dynasticism can't be called discrimination because in India most political parties are dynastic, including the BJP. Articles like Violence against Muslims in independent India, Violence against Christians in India, and Hindu terrorism point out that the right-wing Hindu organisations that follow Hindutva or Hindu nationalist ideology discriminate against the Muslims and Christians. There are countless academic sources that state that clearly. By the way, adding a WP project is not pushing POV; it is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. I don't need to explain the purpose of the WP Project; I have already said it several times. Check Nazi Party article WP Discrimination is added, because it has systemically discriminated against the Jews that has been described in the main article, whereas in India BJP/RSS/Hindutva systemically discriminates against the Muslims and Christians. You're pushing a pro-Hindutva agenda in spite of knowing the real truth. Read the articles that I have mentioned over here. All academic sources point out that right-wing Hindu organisations that follow Hindutva/Hindu nationalism idealogy are real culprints against the minority community in India. Having said that, don't get confused by the real Hindu organisations like Ramakrishna Mission or International Society for Krishna Consciousness or Yogoda Satsanga Society of India or Sri Aurobindo Ashram. These organisations have done extraordinary service; they don't promote hatred against minority communities, i.e., Muslims or Christians. Some of the activities of ISCKON have attracted criticism, which has been mentioned on their website, but they don't directly propagate hate against the minority community, whether it is Christians or Muslims. Thanks--2409:40E0:1029:9571:45D6:F543:984D:272D (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you for adding WP-discrimination in analogous articles like Muslim nationalism in South Asia? It's not just about that article but all the related articles. The Hamas page is just for citing the policy. WP-Terrorism should be added in articles like Hindu Terrorism or Tablighi Jamaat but not in others. Please do not add without reaching consensus with other editors on the talk page or at the discussion at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
You're bringing irrelevent topics in between. Don't digress from the main issues, we're discussing about BJP/RSS/Hindutva and their discriminatory ideology and crimes some of the right-wing Hindu organizations have done. Don't try to push your pro-Hindutva agenda / narrative over here. Thanks--2409:40E0:E:9754:1CC8:CEEB:637F:99F9 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Dear IP user. As you can see, we're only discussing and no one agreed yet. Please stop adding without consensus. First obtain consensus as to what to add and what not to add for every nationalism-related article (not just Hindu nationalism). It's ironic to see your logic to add "Discrimination" WP in articles is itself discriminatory. Rasnaboy (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content by W170924

W170924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could someone with time investigate the removals by the user? I don't think they're warranted, atleast one of them — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They don't seem like a new user to me. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
...probably should be reworded per sources — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Please give them any appropriate warnings. That will help. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Sheikh Hasina#RfC about Indian interference in the lead

Sheikh Hasina, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident - photo and name of the victim on the article

Hello, there's an ongoing [rfc|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim] at 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident about if the victim's name should be included. Your participation there would be helpful and appreciated. the article on 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident states the name of the victim and the puts up the photo of the victim. As you may know the Indian law is clear on the issue that indetifying information of sexual crime victims and survisors cannot be published. I tried to explain that to the editors but they have come back with WP:Notcensored, I tried explaining that noncensored does not mean that we will actively go against the law, we need to weigh in the benefits and the potenatial harm and reach a consensus through meaningful discussions etc. There is a RFC going on at [3] may I request you to please weigh in. Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

When you're asking for outside input, please leave a neutral message inviting them to the discussion. This is not neutral and violates WP:CANVASS. Ravensfire (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Please let me know which part of my post violates neutrality. I have explained my position and have asked for the editors' views. I did not ask them to vote in favour of one side or the other. 16:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Legaleagle86 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
And you presented it with your view being pushed. That's not neutral. Simple as that. Read WP:CANVASS. What should have been done is something like "There's a discussion at 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident about if the victim's name should be included. Your participation there would be helpful and appreciated." And stop. That's neutral - your aren't presenting your arguements at all which is what you did. Short post, here's what the topic is, here's where it is, ask for participation. Done. Ravensfire (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
In light of the recent consensus reached regarding the handling of victim names in the 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, I believe it is essential to establish a norm for similar cases, including the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder case. Given the sensitive nature of such incidents and the potential distress caused to survivors and their families, it is crucial for Wikipedia to align its policies with cultural norms and legal requirements in India.
Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code prohibits the disclosure of a rape victim's name, and the recent discussions highlight a strong community sentiment favoring the exclusion of victim names to respect privacy and cultural sensitivities. I propose we create a guideline that explicitly states the approach to be taken for all articles related to incidents of sexual violence in India, ensuring that we prioritize ethical considerations and legal compliance. This would not only uphold the dignity of victims but also reinforce Wikipedia's commitment to ethical reporting.
I invite all editors to weigh in on this proposal and discuss how we can best implement such a norm moving forward.I.Mahesh (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hindu University of America

User:Presearch asked me to raise attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu University of America (2nd nomination), so, hereby. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Article about a letter of the Sindhi language

I've had a go at creating an article on جهہ, a letter of the Sindhi language. However, my knowledge of this topic is poor, and the article leaves much to be desired. Does anyone here know this topic well enough to improve this article, or can you point me to a better forum for asking this question? — The Anome (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

For the interested. If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hindu American Foundation

Editors are requested to take a look at Hindu American Foundation and ensure compliance with NPOV. I do not see any violations of the policy but as the primary author of the article, I might be biased. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Quality images of Zanskar on Commons

I've posted 300+ Quality Images of Zanskar from my trips in 2022 and 2024. The images are categorised by monastery, etc. I hope these will be useful in Wikipedia articles on Zanskar, Ladakh and the Himalayas. Tagooty (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism from article ‘Chozhia Vellalar’

Hello,

I'm writing to ask if it would be possible to intervene on the ‘Chozhia Vellalar’ article to restore it (or modify it, depending on your assessment) to the state it was in before its last vandalism. In the meantime, I've asked to protect the article, leaving it untouched. However, as I'm not authorised to modify protected articles, I can't retouch it subsequently. So the article is still in its vandalised version (oldid=1249691125; contribution by the user Anirudhahalarama). If it would be possible to restore it to the last previous version, or if you would like to edit it again, I thank you in advance.

Drusekoana (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

I've created this, but nearly all sources were behind a paywall for me, so much of it was created using the first paragraphs of sources. If anyone has access to the sources, expansion or correction would be great. For instance, I have no idea whether that's the actual name of the lawsuit, so I just used a typical US lawsuit title format. Thanks for any help! Valereee (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and if you'd rather just email me the text of the sources, happy to do the work myself. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: I have sent you an email. GrabUp - Talk 19:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Valereee (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: See [4], the name of law suit is "ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC & ORS." Ratnahastin (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I guess I won't move the page there, but maybe a redirect? Valereee (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect seems like a good idea to me. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ahmad Hasan Dani

Ahmad Hasan Dani has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Santhosh Suvarna

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Santhosh Suvarna? I don't know if there is a specific WP:SNG that covers professional poker players, but this article was created directly in the mainspace and doesn't ever seem to have been assessed. It also looks like an attempt to WP:COATRACK content about two professional poker tournaments instead of just focusing on one particular player. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

thenortheasttoday.com?

We have a number of articles which cite articles from thenortheasttoday.com, for example Operation Bluebird. That domain no longer exists. However, I see there is a https://www.northeasttoday.in/. Is it possible these are the same publication under different domain names? RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Supreme Court has dismissed the allegations against Isha Foundation

Since Wikipedia aims to present facts impartially, I respectfully request a review of the “Isha Foundation” article for neutrality and overall quality. In my view, the current representation of several allegations throughout the article lacks proper context regarding potential vested interests from certain groups that are not offering genuine criticism but rather inventing controversies to harm Isha Foundation.0nelight505 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_78&oldid=1255166273"