Talk:The Wire (India)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: 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)

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)

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)

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 a 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)