Talk:Swarajya (magazine)/Archive 1

"Fake News" claim in lead
Hi on what basis are we making a sweeping statement that Swarajya spreads fake news. If we go by the word of so-called fact checkers, every media outlet has advertently or inadvertently spread fake news sometime during the course of the publication. I feel if at all the "fake news" section is added it should be added in the "controversy" section and not in the intro paragraph, which is highly unfair for this legacy magazine. Zipzap22 (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we discuss the labelling of "The website has propagated fake news multiple times." in the opening sections, please? (Rev 943694760) I find it problematic because of a few reasons. First, because of the referencing from media outlets with conflict of interest. Factual inaccuracies do not by themselves constitute wanton fake news operations - none of the references demonstrate that. For ex: should NYT be caught with six factual inaccuracies must it be labelled so in the opening paragraphs? The mischaracterisation is without basis. Further, the established practise seems to be to discuss criticism/controversies in the relevant section rather than to attempt to characterise a publication in the opening few sentences - this does not allow those who disagree to fully contest sweeping claims. For ex. The_New_York_Times page discusses controversies in a section, not in the opening lines. --Amargov (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * First off, I hope you both don't mind that I've started a new section and moved your posts down here for ease of reading. Might as well keep this discussion all in one place, right?


 * Back on Feb 28 was when I tried removing the sentence in question from the lead, and it was reverted with the explanation "WP:LEAD summarises the whole article and thus, this should be included in the lead as summary of reception section. Don't remove without gaining consensus." It seems like we're all in agreement that the Controversy section should exist, and that the fake news claims should primarily be there, so the questions are:


 * 1) Do we mention it in the lead?
 * 2) If yes, what phrasing do we use?
 * The lead does summarize the whole article so I do think it should be mentioned, but I also think that "fake news" is a pretty loaded term. I prefer "Some publications have accused Swarajya of publishing factually inaccurate news" and the appropriate ref. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I feel that any inclusion of reference to Fake news in the lead would be unfair to the publication. Already the opener carries critic claims that Swarajya is pro-BJP. This is extremely harsh on the legacy magazine as it clearly cites its editorial stance on the website - which is not being pro-BJP but being pro free market and secular (Separation of church and state),. Additionally it has on multiple occasions criticised the BJP government. Here is an example -

So the presence of two negative and contentious claims in the lead itself is harsh on the magazine.

Additionally, can we then edit the controversies section which may potentially help us to set aside the necessity to mention the fake news bit in the header. Firstly there are a few issues in the controversy section. The article wrongly states that Shefali Vaidya works for Swarajya. She was a voluntary contributor. Anyone is free to write for Swarajya. They merely have to send a mail and the editorial team ultimately takes to call whether or not to publish it.

Coming to the fake news bit, like you suggested, "some publications have accused Swarajya of publishing fake news" - can this be the sentence in the controversy section rather than a sweeping declaration of guilt which is currently present in the content. The thing is that the references cited are of Quint and Alt News both of whom have themselves been accused of spreading fake news.

The whole business of "Fact Checking" in India is pretty contentious. In most cases they are motivated to score ideological brownie points so it is basically a slugfest.

So in a nutshell:

Can we fully omit the fake news bit from header via relevant modifications to the controversy section or otherwise?

Looking forward to your response - thanks and regards.
 * Linking to what they say about themselves will do you no good. There are several reliable sources in this article that definitively state they have participated in publishing fake news. Praxidicae (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , Like Praxidicae says, those are sources from the magazine; we need third-party sources for this. The article states, with sources, that the magazine has published fake news, and a single sourced sentence in the lead mentioning that is not out of line. Do you have a reliable third-party source countering these claims? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The claims about fake news belong in the controversy section and only there.Pectoretalk 22:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, and what's your policy rationale to back that up? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 02:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article in question
The sources cited in the controversies section are from the websites such as altnews.in, boomlive.in, thewire.in, thequint.com that are commonly seen spreading left-wing propaganda and false news. Please consider removing these citations since all of those sources are rivals of Swarajya publication in the day to day business and also are not referred as a neutral source. Also, please consider adding a badge to the article conveying that the current state of the article is not neutral and may have been vandalized (especially the controversies section by the rivals of this publication house and by left-wing believers). Vishaltelangre (talk
 * Do you have any reliable sources you'd propose to add? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Both Alt News (in 2019) and Boom (in 2019) were certified by the International Fact-Checking Network. They are reliable on this basis, and the IFCN has determined that both of the sources meet its nonpartisanship policy. —  Newslinger  talk   08:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? It seems that the IFCN has had shown bias in the verification of AltNews, for example. Take a look at the Twitter bio of the co-founder of AltNews, Pratik Sinha. It reads, "Member, Jan Sangharsh Manch". There is a Wikipedia article about this Jan Sangharsh Manch, which states "[...]It was founded by Mukul Sinha, Senior Advocate and Trade Union Leader and his wife Nirjhari Sinha, human rights activist, parents of AltNews founder Pratik Sinha.[...] The group has fought to expose the complicity of the former Gujarat Chief Minister and current Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and his ministers and police in the communal pogrom of 2002.[...]". According to IFCN, "open advocacy for a political cause" is a clear violation of their policies whereas the co-founder of AltNews is openly aggressive in doing so. The AltNews and other cited websites are involved in the targeted false news publishing which is in favor of some entities (say political parties) and against some others. That is a clear indication that they should never be trusted. Vishaltelangre (talk)
 * The IFCN reviewed Alt News after it received complaints about this from individuals in India. In this Twitter thread, the verified account of the director of the IFCN shared IFCN's extended questions to Alt News and their responses. After evaluation, the IFCN director stated:


 * First, all those tweets are from July 2019 that makes the verification obsolete given that about a year is passed since then and AltNews kept spreading fake and false news after that. Second, I don't agree with you about the neutrality of IFCN, which is a foreign agency that is based outside of India should be called as neutral and can be treated as "well-trusted" which receives major funding from the for-profit and controversial companies such as Facebook, the Washinton Post for their biased reporting on the global and internal matters of the other nations . Vishal Telangre (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The IFCN reassesses fact-checkers annually for compliance with its code of principles. The Washington Post has been identified as a generally reliable source by the Wikipedia community. Feel free to start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want to challenge the reliability of a source. —  Newslinger   talk   13:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The IFCN was launched in 2015 following a generous donation totaling $300,000, which the Poynter Institute received from two sources. One of them is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – a 'soft-power' organization, which is funded primarily through annual allocations from the US Congress. Another one is the Omidyar Network – a foundation run by the eBay founder and self-described 'progressive' billionaire Pierre Omidyar.[...]Omidyar has also lately shown himself as a major patron of regime-change operations. As early as in 2014, the US media reported that Omidyar supported anti-government groups in Ukraine that opposed the then President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted during Maidan." The more I read about IFCN, the more it gets dirty. Seems like it holds so much power globally. Considering IFCN's major backer is Facebook who is very controversial on the global scale; Facebook along with its beneficiaries such as IFCN, AltNews and others so-called fact-checker websites are not trustworthy and spread false news to make benefits for their financial backers. I would request you to put a banner on the article mentioning that the contents of this article is NOT neutral. Vishal Telangre (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * RT (formerly Russia Today) is a propaganda outlet of the Russian government. It's considered generally unreliable for controversial matters and international politics. George Soros conspiracy theories, like the one published here by RT, are not taken very seriously by reliable sources. —  Newslinger   talk   13:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So you are in pure denial of the above information about the funding received by IFCN that I quoted from an RT article? Anyway, back to the neutrality of the certifying agency of AltNews (and others) that is IFCN -- it had received major funding from the controversial for-profit company Facebook which had been convicted many times for selling the user data to ad agencies, political parties, etc. That makes the link between Facebook, IFCN and the certified fact-checkers very suspicious, in my opinion. What is your opinion? Vishal Telangre (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Arguments derived from original reporting in questionable sources don't hold water. It's not "denial", but adherence to verifiability, which keeps Wikipedia reliable. Additionally, the conspiratorial RT article does not even claim that Facebook funds the IFCN. Facebook uses only IFCN-certified organizations to conduct fact checks on its platform, because it does not want to conduct fact checks itself. This makes sense, because it means that the IFCN-certified Alt News is able to conduct fact checks for Facebook while the IFCN-rejected OpIndia, which has been documented to propagate fake news, is not allowed to do so. —  Newslinger  talk   13:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "...does not even claim that Facebook funds the IFCN" IFCN itself claims their major backer is Facebook.


 * Thanks for the clarification. I see a total of 22 funders on the list, most of which are non-profit organizations. To me, this does not indicate a problem with the IFCN's funding. I've escalated the question of whether the IFCN is reliable to a noticeboard request for comment at . Feel free to join the discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   14:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have raised some concerns accordingly at . Vishal Telangre (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Fake news propagation
I saw that fake news details were removed. The websites I used was standard which are being used in articles such as Madhu Kishwar, Arnab Goswami and Vivek Agnihotri. And it is clear that User:AgainstSlander has Conflict of interest with person because summary mentioned word colleague. If I will not get any comment here then I will add this thing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.213.242.170 (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Challenged negative WP:BLP content may not be added back without a consensus to do so. I'm afraid the onus is on you to convince other editors that this content may be re added.--  Deep fried  okra    08:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How it is slanderous content? It was added in the reliable source that editor cherrypicked incidents to build whole narrative. It was also included in reliable source that editor created false data. I have done research and found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Scroll,_OpIndia,_The_Wire,_The_Quint,_The_Print,_DailyO,_postcardnews,_rightlog_etc. this which says my content was sourced properly. Just labelling without citation of Wikipedia policies is dangerous. Wikipedia has offensive content. Right? If I’m not wrong then Not censored policy says that thing. Please visit websites and then raise valid objection. That account is Single Purpose Account which will not do any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.213.242.170 (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment:- Tada! I have removed their editors propagate fake news and allegations on Swati Goel Sharma. First thing is editors doing in their personal capacity is not reception of magazine, I have no problem with details that magazine propagate misinformation. Second thing is Swati Goel Sharma is currently lesser known or unknown subject outside the Wikipedia. Article quoted was funny because it includes opinion of just one anonymous handle of twitter and provides no encyclopaedic value in magazine's encyclopaedic article, neither language was neutral as it is needed for WP:NPOV. It is not even reflected in multiple, independent and reliable sources. As per WP:BLPCRIME, we don't even include names of accused until convicted as it can affect the living person negatively. Hence, I did it again as it was restored by another editor. If there are any objections then we should move to next ladder of WP:DR and will open WP:RFC or WP:BLPN thread about it. Thanks for protecting the page. -- Harshil want to talk? 02:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There should be no need for an RfC. Try WP:BLPN or ping me if the problem continues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the details as editor is associated with the magazine and her reporting for it was in question.Krishna&#39;s flute (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rather than reception, changing the heading to Controversy may make sense? Prad2609 (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Johnuniq, there still appears to be issues with the fake news stuff. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Fake News claim in LEAD
Shifting comment from The wire to here:

, I had a quick look at sources and here is what I found. Based on these few instances, I don't think magazine needs such line of fake news 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. Also, sentence should be restructured as Swarajya has been found to do misreportings according to fact-checkers. Misreporting and fake news are both different things. Waiting for your response! -- Brihaspati  (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Note that the above editor was blocked for undisclosed paid editing violating our Terms of Use. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, your suggestion sounds reasonable to me. I am not a big fan of using the term "fake news" in this way, since our articles on American/British publications don't do the same unless reliable sources explicitly describe it as such. —  Newslinger  talk   05:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m proposing to change last line of Lead. Magazine has been accused of misreporting. I think word Alt News and other’s are reductant because they’ve been certified by IFCN. What say?— Brihaspati  (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current wording with in-text attribution because "has been accused of misreporting" is an unsupported attribution. —  Newslinger  talk   10:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that for the moment it would be better to have that line further down the article, before any discussion of whether or not it is valid in the first place. Also one of the links regarding "critics note it to be a pro-Bharatiya Janata Party publication" does not make such a claim. TSAray (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The "misreporting" statement is attributed, and Alt News is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network . Without reliable sources claiming that the Alt News fact checks are invalid, there is no reason to remove them from the article on that basis. I've improved the sourcing of the "pro-Bharatiya Janata Party" claim with a citation to "The media are biased: Exploring online right wing responses to mainstream news media in India" by University of Maryland researchers Kalyani Chadha and Prashanth Bhat, published by Oxford University Press. —  Newslinger  talk   20:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good edit. On the other point regardless of misreporting, the relevant line should be written in the section on controversy that is found below. SD guidance says "Avoid anything that is, or could reasonably be construed as, controversial or judgemental. Use universally accepted facts wherever possible." and description is supposed to be as short as possible. Hence, it makes more sense to have the controversy section about that and leave out the sentence from the introduction. Additionally, with regard to the pro-BJP claim, the Pune Mirror and Telegraph citations constitute Conflict of Interest and do not demonstrate that the magazine is pro-BJP factually, instead these are claims.TSAray (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "conflict of interest" when a publication covers information about another publication. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources for all topics, and there is no policy or guideline that excludes coverage from sources that are published in the same format as the subject. In addition to the two citations you mentioned, the "favourably on the Bharatiya Janata Party" text is covered by the Oxford University Press publication, with the relevant excerpt reproduced below:
 * We could expand the sentence from "The publication reports favourably on the Bharatiya Janata Party." to "The publication features writings from prominent right-wing figures and members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and reports favourably on the BJP." —  Newslinger  talk   22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We could expand the sentence from "The publication reports favourably on the Bharatiya Janata Party." to "The publication features writings from prominent right-wing figures and members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and reports favourably on the BJP." —  Newslinger  talk   22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead
While I don't object to the revert you have made since I have checked the sources and there isn't actual problem there, but I would still like some clarification that in comparison with the version I read the last time, the lead is now 3 paragraphs than 2 paragraphs, and the sentence "The publication subscribes to right-wing liberalism and critics note it to be a pro-Bharatiya Janata Party publication", has been changed to "The publication reports favourably on the Bharatiya Janata Party." I think this modification should be reverted and the lead should be 2 paragraphs again. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The content that you removed in Special:Diff/969396735/969462780 is supported by reliable sources, and should remain. I have no objection to removing the line breaks between any of the paragraphs in the lead section. —  Newslinger  talk   08:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Introduction must be edited
There seems to be no relation between Swarajya founded by Rajaji and Swarajya(magazine) apart from some claims. The introduction seems to suggest this to be an established fact. It needs an edit. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article currently cites "Re-launching Swarajya, a voice for India's new Right", an interview with one of Swarajyas editorial directors in The Hindu, to explain that the current iteration of Swarajya is a "re-launch" of Raraji's Swarajya. Livemint confirms this in "Rajagopalachari’s ‘Swarajya’ to be relaunched soon". —  Newslinger ' talk   05:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

this is a biased review and few sources that backed this article are left wing extremist sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.119.83.239 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This article has 40 references, and there are no "left wing extremist sites" among them. —  Newslinger  talk   07:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020
Please remove the ""'Alt News' fact checks Swarajya as misreporting' "" at the end of the into paragraph

Indians know Alt News is far less reliable and employs far less qualified people and less researched pieces than Swarajya. Alt news purposely misreports and leaves information out; Swarajya might have a bias but they state what they have written that is opinion vs fact; very reliable in general. 2601:85:C101:B870:C032:F658:BED5:9584 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There are multiple reliable sources which indicate Swarajya is deficient as a news organisation; this does not appear to be WP:UNDUE. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Heavily update Controversy sections and Remove misleading claims.
Im requesting approval for recent edit I made to the Swarajya article. Much of the content describing Swarajya News as "peddling misinformation" violates the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. It's also important to note that Swarajya News always issues corrections to it reports. I would also request that Swarajya be removed from the wikipedia blacklist. While it may have some relations to Opindia, it's editorial policy seems very different and unlike opindia, they actually issues corrections to their reporting. Since I can't site Swarajya, refers to swarajya's editorial philosophy. Krao212 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The content you removed - the entire Controversy section - is all sourced content with consensus to include. Reporting that multiple third-party sources state the magazine has misreported news is neither original research nor a violation of the NPOV policy. Do you have reliable third-party sources that Swarajya "always issues corrections"?
 * Also, the reference you provide doesn't mention Swarajya at all, so I'm not sure why you put it here. Are you saying that it's not as bad as OpIndia? Because that doesn't matter either, unreliable is unreliable, and another source being worse doesn't make this one any better. In addition, this isn't the place to request a source be reviewed, go to the reliable sources noticeboard for that (but do note that last time it was discussed "Swarajya frequently republishes lightly rephrased content from OpIndia, so the same arguments apply here" came up, so you've got a real uphill battle). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Claims of Neutrality
As far i Know Wikipedia claims to be Neutral But What Kind of Tone is This???? How U can Say It Favours Bjp Do u say same about Ndtv who favours CONGRESS heavily???? Write more Unbiased views. Samboy 01681 (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See, here's the thing - Wikipedia reports what third-party sources say. We don't say it favors anyone. The sources do. If you believe that these sources are wrong, then it's on you to find other sources that are at least as reliable that say something else. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nekokatsun U are not wrong either but thing is those which sources are relaible u blocked those sites Like on Page of Ayurveda U say it is Pseudoscientific How U can say these Is beyond me. Its a well organised health care which has is root in Ancient Past, Anyway Can i Wrote On Lead of Wikipedia own article about Wikipedia that its Senior Admin Cheery Pick sources acc to their own Narrative or Views???? It said Shree Ram as War Cry and what not. Be neutral like u used to be few years back in every subject.Samboy 01681 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia is neutral (or at least tries to be). Wikipedia quotes sources. I can think whatever I want about a topic, but when editing Wikipedia, if the sources don't agree with me then that's how it is. Neutral doesn't mean that it agrees with your worldview. And if a source that you feel is reliable is blocked, then bring it up at the proper noticeboard! We want to include more reliable sources, but they have to actually be reliable sources. Not sure what point you're trying to make with Ayurveda, either; the four humours are a well organized health system with roots in the ancient past, too, and they're pretty pseudo. Again, just because you have a view doesn't mean reliable sources agree with you. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 05:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Update to the lede
My good-faith edits to improve the lede were reverted by Newslinger. It was suggested that changes may be discussed on the talk page. I would like to make the following suggestions for changes to the lede article for NPoV:


 * 1) Move reference to R Jagannathan to the section under Re-launch. There are two editorial directors and I see no need to mention Jagannathan here specifically.
 * 2) I would like to update the sentences to improve grammar and clarity. In this regard, I would like to change "Originally established in 1956 as a weekly under the patronage of C. Rajagopalachari, it shut down in 1980 but was relaunched in September 2014, as a daily news website; a monthly print magazine was launched in January 2015." to "It was originally established in 1956 as a weekly under the patronage of C Rajagopalachari. It was shut down in 1980. It was relaunched in September 2014 as a daily news website. A monthly print magazine was launched in January 2015."
 * 3) I believe that many news organisation have reported that Swarajya misreported news. The same has been covered in detail under the controversy section. I think rewording "It is alleged that Swarajya has misreported news on multiple occassions." in the lede will provide a general introduction.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prad2609 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding here, . These comments are based on the changes in Special:Diff/999023152:


 * 1) According to The News Minute, Jagannathan was appointed Editorial Director in December 2015. The proposed wording should be rephrased to reflect that Jagannathan joined Swarajya later than Deb.
 * 2) I have no objection to point #2 beyond minor copyedits.
 * 3) Since "It is alleged..." is an unsupported attribution, it would be better to retain the current wording of "According to fact-checking websites such as Alt News...", which identifies the attributed sources.
 * Since you stated that these changes were for neutrality, could you please also clarify how the proposed changes would affect the neutrality of the lead section? —  Newslinger  talk   04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021
Please remove the sentence Swarajya was blacklisted from Wikipedia in 2020 alongside OpIndia and Hindu nationalist website TFIpost. Per WP:SELF, Wikipedia's internal actions should be avoided in mainspace. 183.83.146.220 (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 183.83.146.220 (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌, WP:SELF refers to articles and text which are self referential. It does not exclude mentioning Wikipedia when it's relevant to the subject and covered by reliable secondary sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * who has the authority to blacklist sources on Wikipedia? And how can we know the reasoning behind blacklisting this specific source? --Eklavya111 (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Change 'Controversy' section to 'Reception' or 'Allegations'
Hello ,please talk with regarding this section. As I am new writer, I am finding it difficult to communicate my views. As you (DaxServer) did on Dhruv Rathee page. So please do it on this page also. Please explain this difference in the rules. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonethelessian (talk • contribs)
 * Friend, I see that you keep mentioning WP:CSECTION as rationale for renaming the section, but you seem to be overlooking WP:CORG slightly further down that page: Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism – however within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS. I could see renaming the section "Criticism" instead of "Controversy", since it is in fact subject to significant criticism; what do you think?


 * Also, please make sure to sign your posts on talkpages by putting four tildes  after your comments. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pings don't register when the comment isn't signed. Now, the term "Criticism" does seem to be better descriptor of the section's content, so I have changed it to that. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 20:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)