Talk:Asian News International

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Asian News International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928181836/http://www.eamedia.org/history/2006/report/global_news to http://www.eamedia.org/history/2006/report/global_news

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Space
"Inappropriate to link from article space." Is this not accepted practice? For example, Sysop links to Administrators. Benjamin (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was mistaken, it seems to be an accepted practice. I felt that it would be inappropriate to distinguish from internal pages that a small fraction of readers would find relevant, but it looks like the community feels otherwise. —Gazoth (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , on second thought, why did you add it here? I assumed that ANI redirects here, but it redirects to a disambiguation page that already links to WP:ANI. I don't see a need to distinguish WP:ANI from every page that abbreviates to ANI. —Gazoth (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This page was the first Wikipedia Google result for ANI. Benjamin (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is subjective and depends on your search history. For me, this page is not even on the first 10 results for "ANI". Secondly, why would a person who opened a page for "Asian News International" be confused that it doesn't lead to WP:ANI? —Gazoth (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Critisism Section
All the references in the Critisism section is opinionated and based on unreliable sources. Must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup required!
This article (Asian News International) currently has 29 references to a single magazine article behind a paywall:



Please provide citations from multiple, better sources (ideally not behind a paywall). Thanks!

--Test9753 (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The article seems thoroughly biased and immensely selective on criticism. Needs to be checked and re-edited. Sreekanth yerram 17:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriyerram (talk • contribs)

BBC source
What if anything should be added based on this source ?SovalValtos (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International&diff=993738804&oldid=993590750 - Why? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrangaBellam (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Asian News International (ANI)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Asian News International (ANI). Walrus Ji (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of criticism
the controversy section is mostly cited from single source The Caravan. I that an unbiased and reliable source? Vikash kumar thakur (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022
114.79.142.90 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Ani is a nurtal news channel,infact alt news is biggest fake and propoganda fact checker
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Khrincan  ( talk ) 20:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI sues WMF for defamation
ANI has sued the Wikimedia Foundation over the content in this article, alleging it is defamatory. Source: Live Law. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 06:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah just saw it in news but I am not sure, what is so objectionable ? So that they have taken a legal recourse? QueerEcofeminist🌈  06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has declared them as propaganda. ArushR (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With the way many editor editing Wikipedia conveniently picking news link as source. Many calling out Wikipedia as propaganda too. ChaobaJam (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * don't say such things. Wikipedia does not "declare them as propaganda". Wikipedia documents what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources say ANI is propaganda, then that's what gets written here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources that speak of this issue we can use? That's the proper way to deal with this, rather than just griping. If you're just going to make allegations and slurs, then stop it. You risk getting blocked if you continue. See WP:NOTFORUM -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the objectionable part for which WMF is slapped with a lawsuit "the news agency has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites and misreporting events." 210.212.189.98 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is a short posting about this on an Indian law blog Bar and Bench. Not much more than the LiveLaw article above but it does quote some of the claims in the suit, including the rather interesting interpretation of semi-protection as "They have closed my (ANI's) page for editing by anyone and can only be edited through their representatives". Good luck with that argument, I suppose. Corundum Conundrum  (CC) 16:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously, why does Wiki show them in that bad light, don't find any good reason. ANI is the leading asia news agency and the page literally show them in totally bad light like fake news and all. ANy editor involved in it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.59.168.202 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We document what reliable sources say, so their objection is with those sources. ANI could try to sue them, but that would be a big mistake, as the Streisand effect is a powerful thing. The very fact they are suing, to presumably prevent people learning about the controversy, could be construed as a bad faith and counterproductive move, as their lawsuit only increases the likelihood that even more people will learn of it. They should just clean up their act and behave better. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they're just shooting themselves in the foot by yapping pointlessly... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is not about preventing people from knowing fact but the very little thing like the quoted section,,(about fake news and all) could seriously misguide the people giving it a negative light which is generally not recommended.A very shrt percentage of the fact has been used to shed their negative light which is what I worry about @Valjean. 152.59.169.53 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024‎ (UTC)
 * You don't understand our rules here. See my response to you below. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The so called "reliable sources" :D 210.212.189.98 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valjean seems you are rattled by the lawsuit. But why? Be brave, let the attornies of WMF face the judiciary, everyone has a right to defend their integrity. I see nothing wrong in this 2 CR is not a big money. 210.212.189.98 (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bother me, because I have no skin in this game. I did not create that content, and I am not the one who wrote those RS. Those sources are at risk, not Wikipedia. Neither Wikipedia nor its editors have acted with malice toward ANI, and ANI will have to prove that in court. That is a fool's errand.
 * ANI's whole move is foolish, as that content is backed by many RS. If the RS have been used improperly, any editor is free to explain the error, thus rectifying the situation and changing the objectionable content. That should be easy to do. This attempt to use the courts, rather than following the normal processes here, shows that ANI knows the sources are correct and that it has a weak case. ANI seems to think that force, rather than facts, will win. It will not. To win, ANI must show it is acting in good faith. It is not doing that because it has not first tried to produce RS that show the RS we use are in error.
 * That's why we don't allow legal threats here. We force editors to use RS and edit the content. ANI's allies should try to do that. If there are RS that show it is innocent, let ANI produce those sources. Absent those sources, the content will remain unchanged and ANI will make a spectacle of itself in court and before the world. Its reputational damage will be done by itself. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything, I told what happened...That's all ArushR (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * * The IT Act, 2000 defines an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) as: any digital company(WMF in this case) who on behalf of another person(Wikipedia editors) receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes.
 * * The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 in India provides a framework for regulating intermediaries and their liabilities regarding the content hosted or transmitted through their platforms.
 * * The intermediary has not conspired, abetted, aided, or induced the commission of the unlawful act (defamation if proven in this case)
 * * If an intermediary fails to remove or disable access to unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge or notification, they can lose the safe harbor protection under Section 79 and become liable for that content.
 * * The IT Act provides a conditional safe harbor for intermediaries, protecting them from liability for third-party content if they comply with certain conditions, such as removing or disabling access to unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge.
 * The credibility of the purportedly "reliable sources" was not taken into account by Indian courts. The WMF is responsible for demonstrating the validity of the "reliable sources". It was not the Indian judiciary that relied on the views of these "reliable sources"' editors. They will ask for the evidence.
 * 210.212.189.98 (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear @210.212.189.98, This is absolutely absurd logic. No editor on Wikipedia adds anything without a reliable source. If ANI has to file a case, they should do so against the sources that have called ANI a mouthpiece of the government, not against the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Best regards, Youknow? (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really, Editor could have high bias and can't really be that their edit will be all good-faithed ones and most likely I presume this is totally the case here.. and the sources are really from 2020s not any recent one. Why so? I am seeing such is the suffering of many arcticle over-bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.59.169.53 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are way out of line with such statements, and can be blocked just for saying that. Such comments are not allowed here. You must assume good faith and not make personal attacks, even if you don't name any editor. You are assuming bad faith. What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."
 * The bias you see is from the sources, and Wikipedia documents all sides of a controversy. You want us to leave out one side and turn this into a hagiography. We don't do that here. You want us to violate NPOV. Neither article sources or content must be "neutral". Rather, it is editors who must edit neutrally by accurately documenting what RS say, including the negative parts, the parts you don't like.
 * If you want to make any progress and be taken seriously, you must read the sources and see if they have been used improperly. For example, have we quoted a source inaccurately? Answer that, rather than just complaining. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Threatening and blocking people who doesn't agree to you, we all know what that is called and that's what is wrong with Wikipedia. Any sane neutral person knows what is going on behind the scenes here. 2406:B400:71:77F3:ECA0:DD65:1E37:FBD (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And cherry picking the sources, twisting the narrative, presenting one side and silencing the other, when the RS itself uses ANI for many of their articles, even Wikipedia use ANI interviews and all. 2406:B400:71:77F3:ECA0:DD65:1E37:FBD (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of "Reliable Sources" are doubtful: ANI sues WMF
This article's "reliable sources" include Alt News, Caravan, and the BBC. 14.139.114.221 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * BBC has long faced accusations of liberal and left-wing bias.
 * Source
 * Proposed Chenge: Remove the BBC referance from this article 14.139.114.221 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Are there any representatives for ANI here?
Has anyone connected to ANI made any comment(s) on this page or tried to edit the article? Please let us know here. (When I write "us", I am referring to editors in general, not the Wikimedia Foundation.) -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Not representatives although related to it, the intro is far too focused on criticizing with half of the intro with negative tone which is more than it weighs. I agree past shouldn't be erased which indeed it isn't but what is worth off mentioning in the particular article should be cared. In addition, As an user pointed out most of the sources used here is Caravan, is that generally good enough or powerful to retain the claim or is it unbias generally to consider. Is there renowned newspaper like The Hindu, The Times of India, Indian Express or others reviewing so mention such things or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.189.201 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, I think some claim are overly exaggerated too much for the subjects like propaganda and fake news especially the preceding lines in the Para of the Content section to the extent that almost all of the News website are common to it and this shouldn't even worth mentioning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.189.201 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)