Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-04-09/In the media

Discuss this story

I'm confused which article is affected by the Delhi High Court's decision. It would seem to be Asian News International itself, but I don't see any recent office actions there. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no office actions on the ANI-article yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That page does not appear to be saved in the IA, pre-censorship. Is there any mirror anyone knows, outside the single interwiki (to Chinese Wikipedia)? It's ironic that the article exits, right now, only in Chinese... (zh:亚洲国际新闻诉维基媒体基金会案)). I'd have expected it would've been translated to other languages by now. PS. I found a copy here, seems to be from 16 October or so, at it mentions the take down order from that day. PPS. The Chinese article is superior, as it seems to be updated with post-take down content, up to March 2025 currently. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

archive.today Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I need to start using this together with IA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to get confused on current WP-ANI media coverage. The "thing" about mean content in Asian News International is presumably still ongoing, the Delhi High Court recently told WMF "Do what ANI wants" or something like that. We're all quite eager to see what that leads to.

And at the same time, WMF has been talking about the DHC-ordered blanking of Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation in the Supreme Court of India, and that court seems to have doubts on if that order was reasonable. How many of us have started a WP-article that was mentioned in a supreme court? And blanked by court-order, that's probably more distinctive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF blanked the article about the court case, upon the demand of the court, which felt that the Wikipedia article discussing the case could prejudice the case itself. Perhaps not an unreasonable request.
As for the case itself. The claimant presumably wants "disparaging" statements, such as this statement in the article lead, to be removed from the article. This is where issues of Freedom of the Press come into play.

Long-form investigations by The Caravan and The Ken have described ANI as being closely associated with the government of India for decades, including under Congress Party rule, but especially after the 2014 election of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In 2019, The Caravan reported that ANI "has a disturbing history of producing blatant propaganda for the state".

Of course, views can vary about whether a statement is true fact, or blatant propaganda. My statement here is my own. This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Kombat

The Portal Combat (Russian disinformation) links numbered 1,907, mostly from ru and uk domains. While this needs action, it is a very small number. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough Portal:Combat? No... is your link correct? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's Portal Kombat. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ty! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't the section on the Trump nominees, by attacking living Wikipedians, a violation of WP:BLP?

There's no reason to think the statements about the editors are neutral, accurate, or unbiased. We're quoting attacks on Wikipedians, in Signpost voice. WE CANNOT DO THIS. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I do not see the violation that you do, and I am also not sure which text is problematic, but I think this is the fix you are requesting - special:diff/1284867896/1285617502. Can you check that, and tell me if that improves the clarity of the message and resolves the issue you found? Thanks, we aim to be clear in communicating to everyone. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but kind of needs a retraction next issue, since it was published like this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 10:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan spring

Wasn't that made into a draft, rather than being deleted? So it's still readable - and by everyone, not just admins. DS (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it was deleted by the admin on 2 April upon AfD closure, then restored to draft space by the same admin at an editor's request on 9 April, about a week after the AfD was done, and in fact about 30 minutes after we published the article you are reading. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]