This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India: Delhi High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Where is the wording that ANI is "propaganda" for the Indian government coming from? Is this supported by The Ken, Caravan or both? Please provide exact quotes that use the word "propaganda" to describe ANI. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Caravan article uses the term descriptively throughout its long investigative piece on ANI. One example is Throughout its history, ANI has remained ensconced in the power circles of Lutyens’ Delhi, and has a disturbing history of producing blatant propaganda for the state. See here for a full version of the article. Silverseren^C 03:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the court only reviewed the paywalled version that was linked in the citation template, which only shows the first three paragraphs of the full article? These three paragraphs do not mention the term propaganda before you reach the subscription banner that blocks the remainder of the article. I've modified the citation template to use the unpaywalled version as the primary citation link in Special:Diff/1285328780/1285335952. If the court or any other reader were to review the article and its citations right now, they would be able to access the full unpaywalled Caravan article without a subscription. — Newslinger talk 03:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the link of the archives version as given by silverseren . It looks the articles are pure speculative with no evidence given in support of their speculations. The courts has rightly observed. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Caravan article incorporates interviews with numerous people associated with ANI, so I disagree with your opinion. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Caravan article is a highly detailed, meticulously documented report that covers ANI's history, controversies, and relationship with the Indian government. The "...has a disturbing history of producing blatant propaganda for the state" and "As the 2019 general election approaches, ANI will be a formidable tool in the hands of the ruling party in its bid to come back to power" claims are unambiguous. However, the article does not use the exact phrase "propaganda tool" and should not be quoted as a source for that exact phrase, per the principle of minimal change. The cited Newslaundry article and Ken article do not use that exact phrase, either. Because of this, I have rephrased our article to remove the "propaganda tool" quote and replace it with the "a disturbing history of producing blatant propaganda for the state" quote, attributed solely to The Caravan, in Special:Diff/1285364130. — Newslinger talk 08:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Delhi High Court's Appellate bench judgment of 8th April 2025 at paras 31,32 and 33 (still in force notwithstanding the Supreme Court judgment of 17.April) cautions Wikipedia editors (chilling effect) against reproducing "one sided / non-neutral" text from other sources unless they are prepared to take personal responsibility for such reproduction. JudgeMistry (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So we need to know what that text is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find an unpaywalled version of "How ANI quietly built a monopoly" from The Ken that would be usable as a citation link. Someone on Reddit uploaded a screenshot of the full unpaywalled article to Imgur, but posting a link to that screenshot on Wikipedia would be a violation of the "Linking to copyrighted works" (WP:COPYLINK) policy.

Unless I missed something, The Ken's article does not explicitly use the term propaganda. It does have one section (titled "Politically correct") that describes ANI's close relationship to the ruling party of the Indian government—regardless of the party that is in power—which helped ANI obtain its monopoly status. However, its sentences such as "While they maintained connections with the Congress during its time in power in the 1980s and 1990s, they were quick to court the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) when the tide seemed to be shifting" do not adequately support the propaganda descriptor. In contrast to the highly critical Caravan article, I do not consider the Ken article to be criticism of ANI.

In light of these findings, I've rephrased various sentences of our article to avoid attributing the propaganda descriptor to The Ken and to avoid claiming that The Ken has "criticised" ANI in its reporting in Special:Diff/1285364130. — Newslinger talk 08:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the link of the archives version as given by silverseren . It looks the articles are pure speculative with no evidence given in support of their speculations. The courts has rightly observed. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So? they have been published and not retracted, so we can comment on them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been rebutted by Newslinger. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttel by the editing community should be produced in the court while hearing was going on. The court do asked the editor involved in court but as I know, no body from the editing community presented their view in court other than WMF and ANI. now the court has reserved its order in absence of the wikipedia editors community. I am not pretty sure , what courts do when one amongst many party choose to absent let's wait for the judjement. 152.59.63.251 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if we attribute the claimes WE are not makign any accusations, just reiterating ones in the public sphere,. thus We are obeying the court order by not amming a direct accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly, I am not going into that argument of "accusation" any further. If I really have to justify the validity of the "claims" of the atteibutions I should have done this in front of the judges . 152.59.63.251 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we are only repeating what RS say, so as long as we do not say it is true, we are not making any accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would gently suggest that the courts in India do not agree with this rationale. I have linked to the Appellate Court's judgment of 8 April earlier on this talk page. Paras 31 through 33. JudgeMistry (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it, or does it say we can't say its true, we need to know what actual wording is being objected to. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is now purely between ANI and the Wikimedia Foundation. If now WMF does not delete the specific text that ANI specifies, it will be WMF which will be responsible (not those 3 editors). JudgeMistry (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What specific text? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI wants a specific version which existed in 2019. JudgeMistry (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which version? Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A version of 26 Feb 2019 which is reproduced in the first judgment JudgeMistry (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So this version [[1]]? Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't change anything from that version, and can never alter it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see the article reset to that version and locked forever. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from an office action, which is not a decision made by the English Wikipedia community, there is no basis in the protection policy (WP:PP) to permanently protect any version of an article. Additionally, that 2019 version lacks coverage from reliable sources, including The Caravan and The Ken, which has gained due weight as a result of media coverage of this court case. Excluding due content would be a violation of the neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV). — Newslinger talk 03:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but if this is the version authorised by the indian court, and if WMF enforces that ruling, this has to be the only version we are allowed. This is why we need speocif text to remove, and not just a vague date to reset to. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters. We (as editors) do not directly care what the courts say. The WMF has lawyers that will handle that, so we just have to follow instructions from the WMF if they give them to us. Right now there are no such instructions, so we should not allow the court proceedings to influence us in any way, shape, or form. The WMF's lawyers are capable of deciding when it's necessary to cover their ass (as we've seen) and they're not doing that right now, so we should write the article according to our policy and never according to vague handwavy fears by individual editors with no legal expertise. The entire reason Wikipedia:No legal threats exists is because editors are not qualified to or appropriate to evaluate such threats; that's the WMF's job. Kindly leave it to them. --Aquillion (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this article is open again, we can consider shortening the Asian_News_International#Wikimedia_Foundation stuff a bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest updating the other ongoing cases with ANI, particularly Open AI. This has seen many intervenors and there have been more hearings since the last update. Given the critical issues it touches, I think this one should have a separate article like ANI v. Wikimedia Case.

https://trademarklawyermagazine.com/indian-music-industry-files-intervention-application-in-ani-v-openai-copyright-case/ 164.152.142.245 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is a separate article called "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation". I hope that helps. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There have been allegations of unfair copyright strikes by ANI as a means of extortion of large sums of money by a number of Indian YouTubers. I believe that should be added to the article as well. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is ideally covered under the Free Use provision. https://www.medianama.com/2025/05/223-ani-copyright-strikes-youtubers-fair-use/ What sort of vanity projects is ANI running, silencing free speech? They're the monopoly holders with videos because of their connections with the government and now are cracking down on YouTubers. Let's include a section on this. Prakash family seems to be a curse for Indian creators and news.

Watch this video by this YouTuber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL7tCjIQNd8 2607:F598:B03A:3A0:B499:A970:B8B4:EE6D (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If people are using video content from ANI without permission then that can be copyright infringement if this is in violation of India's fair dealing statue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: If you had read YouTube's Fair Policy, you wouldn't be asking this question. And anyway, ANI has turned this into a business. This section is very important to include. You can read the full report related to this here. Baqi:) (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to support ANI in any way, but you could argue that YouTubers using ANI content, when (a) ANI is known to be very litigious in terms of copyright, and (b) India's "fair dealing" laws are very vague, may not exactly be the brightest. Why not use your own content? Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Thanks, the issue here is not about stealing someone’s content, the real issue is that ANI intimidates creators and extorts money from them. They pressure creators to buy subscriptions forcefully, and they’ve even gotten many creators’ channels shut down. This is nothing short of extortion. Baqi:) (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a section on this in the "Litigation" section that I think is reasonably balanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using words like "aggressive" is not exactly balanced. And "known for" without a timeline make it sound as though ANI has done it for a long time, but what's certain for sure that it comes to light only in May 2025. – robertsky (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Hemiauchenia. Baqi:) (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/05/28/ani-files-defamation-suit-against-youtuber-mohak-mangal They have sued the YouTuber who called them out. 2607:F598:B03A:240:7905:1650:34F2:6EDF (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of coverage on the article subject.^[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]