Talk:The Wire (India)

Some Clean up

The litigation section of this article is WP:UNDUE-ly long and seems to give an extreme amount of weightage to it. A newspaper/magazine article should not have half the page be litigation unless the newspaper is itself known for said litigation. I've taken a pass to reduce said overly verbose descriptions.

I think another pass might be needed, ideally to remove any sections where no cases were actually filed. The section viz "Adityanath government" might be either be removed or merged into another subheading if considered notable enough, and I believe at least the section titled "Amit Malviya" should be removed. Any relevant notes can be added and expanded in the Tek Fog/Meta sections and pages.

Soni (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Levixius: What I was doing was in fact an attempt at copy-editing. Which is also why I also discussed it here while doing said removal. Can you explain how you consider each paragraph explaining interim orders in detail so notable? The existence of the case is one thing, but reading into the actual content... There's 3 paragraphs just to say "A court ordered Wire to remove articles on Jay Shah, and there were pleas with higher courts". How do you call that WP:CRV?

If you're going to revert someone, please respond on already existing talk page threads instead of just leaving summaries.

Soni (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Seeing that there's been almost 5 days without a talk page comment, I have reverted back to the cleaned up version. Will discuss further if there's contention on specific removals. Soni (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

More clean up

I've taken another pass to edit the article from UNDUE length. The lawsuits section was cluttered with news stories about initial filings but I was unable to find sources discussing the result of those lawsuits. They have been removed. Further removal may be necessary for due-ness, the existence of lawsuits is not notable enough by itself here Soni (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Moved from User talk:DaxServer#Notice reg. revert of well supported edit

This edit is well supported by the cited ref and the edit summary your provided didnt justify your rv. Well, the How's behind your claim of WPUNDUE is more important here for this revert. BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd: Like I stated and linked in the revert, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight and what a lead sentence is. Something is cited doesn't mean it goes into the lead sentence — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah , there is no mention of Marathi and Urdu language edition of The Wire in the citation, which i removed and you reinstated. BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed those — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Editorial stance

I have mentioned that The Wire is a part of a coalition of progressive news outlets from around the world. Should it be included in the lead that The Wire is progressive, like it is in the article for HuffPost?

Also, based on the article The Annihilation of Caste Requires Dismantling Hinduism's Code of Ordinances by The Wire Staff, can it be added in Editorial stance that they support Ambedkarism and Anti-Brahminism?

–Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam:, I have changed "identified as being left-leaning" to "perceived as being left-leaning". To quote @Tayi Arajakate: from a similar discussion we had in April 2021, see Talk:The Wire (India)/Archive 1#Political stance in lead. (emphasis mine),

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.

Why do you think the source is a "marginally reliable journal article"? It was cited by 13, so it would seem that many scholars think otherwise.

Also, which is the primary source that shouldn't have been used? The website of Progressive International? In that case, adding this article by openDemocracy as a secondary source– Introducing the Wire International. This article also links to an article from The Wire (India).

Btw the article by openDemocracy explicitly says that "The Wire International is a new global project to challenge the corporate stranglehold over the means of media production by building an international network of left-wing publications to exchange content and build collective power."

Since The Wire (India) is a part of this network, why shouldn't it be considered left-wing?

–Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: This tweet is a reference to the coalition called Wire (that it is indeed a coalition of progressive media) and not The Wire; but the thread also contains a list of those media sources, and includes The Wire (India).

And why did you remove the article by openDemocracy? Wouldn't that count as a secondary source?

Also, https://journals.aau.dk/index.php/NJMM/article/view/3651 is the original link for Political Economy of Media Entrepreneurship: Power, Control and Ideology in a News Media Enterprise in Nordic Journal of Media Management. The button for the PDF is on the right side in a small box. The article can be downloaded using that. Hence, I had replaced the academia.edu link with this.

–Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yuyutsu Ho: The one reference provided is enough to cite.
Also it was better to directly cite the list on X curated by them than the tweet under which they posted its link, however, since the tweet was posted by the same organization and did not provide any additional value(like a secondary source), citing it would not make a difference. As for the 'openDemocracy' article, it was a blatant opinion piece promoting 'The Wire' coalition and did not reference the Indian one at all. Regarding the paper, I was unable to view it online, but it is downloadable, so I have removed the verification needed template for that paper. Best regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor the openDemocracy article does reference The Wire (India)–

... In its first week alone, readers can find an overview of the historical trajectory of the Hindutva movement...

–Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Such indirect citation dressed in opinion is not suitable. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• WP:BOLD — Do not restore challenged material until you have a consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: consensus is needed for which part? The Wire being perceived as left-leaning, it being a part of an international network of progressive media, or Political Economy of Media Entrepreneurship: Power, Control and Ideology in a News Media Enterprise being a reliable source? You're the only one disagreeing with the last one btw, @Tayi Arajakate:, @BlackOrchidd:, @ExclusiveEditor: seem to be fine with it.

@Kautilya3: maybe you could weigh in, as you were also there in a similar discussion in Talk:The Wire (India)/Archive 1#Political stance in lead. 3 years ago.

–Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For every part. Editorial stances shall be attributed to multiple high quality sources (see OpIndia) and ExclusiveEditor has highlighted the perils of using the OD source. As to the PEME article, the journal is barely known and it is the first issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I can understand that for the "perceived as left-leaning" part, but that The Wire is a member of Progressive International's Wire is a fact, it's not even primary research. That fact doesn't change even if no sources other than Progressive International (and openDemocracy) report it.

Also, the journal article contains statements from one of the founding editors. Why would that need multiple sources?

–Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yuyutsu Ho pretty good argument in support of your content addition. It seems @TrangaBellam is in opposition; any further attempt by them should be perceived as nonneutral behavior, including their edits on Modi's page, and be taken to the admin's noticeboard. This comment should be a warning to them .

Also, for broad consensus, you may start an RFC. BlackOrchidd (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You want to simply mention that "The Wire is a member of Progressive International's Wire"? Sure, go ahead but we need atleast one secondary source to cover DUE. Though the more important question is about its placement under a subsection titled "Editorial Stance". As to "left-leaning", you failed to convince Tayi and K3 then; now, me. So, I suggest you drop it atleast until I have the time to peruse all recent scholarship (example 1) that has appeared in the past few years. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding this in History,

In 2020, The Wire joined Progressive International's Wire– a coalition of progressive media outlets from around the world.

The article in openDemocracy, Introducing the Wire International (which mentions an article by The Wire as being one of the Wire members' stories) is not acceptable apparently, so adding the Twitter list of Wire's coalition partners published by Revista Común.

Also adding this in History,

According to one of the founding editors, the founders’ basic value is to stand for the right of the individual against the normally overbearing nature of the State. He further added that the founders are socially and economically liberal in their approach.

Varadarajan said in an interview that he (and by extension The Wire, as asked in question) in all matters of journalism is guided by the Constitution of India.

The first paragraph above is from the PEME article (p. 88) and quotes V, one of the founding editors of The Wire–

Although it seemed The Wire represented the left side of the ideological spectrum, the founders’ position was more nuanced than that. As V explained, “We are a not-for-profit public interest journalism platform. We hope that we can have revenue models which are not totally ad-driven.” V felt advertisers might influence editorial policies. “Our basic objective is to inform without fear or favor.” He said the founders’ basic value was that they stood for the right of the individual against the normally overbearing nature of the State. “We are socially and economically liberal in our approach.”

You can add the content for Editorial stance when you get the time. See you in 3 years ;)

– Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Siddharth Varadarajan "removed"?

The sources cited (reference #s 4 and 5) say he "resigned" when The Hindu reverted to being a family-run paper. But the Wiki article says he was "removed." Why the discrepancy? 2406:7400:94:1597:810F:4C9C:F58D:8085 (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The cited Columbia Journalism Review report does say that Varadarajan was "removed from his job as the editor of The Hindu". However, the cited Mint report states that Varadarajan "resigned from leading English daily The Hindu". I've amended the article in Special:Diff/1264635696 to say that Varadarajan "departed from his position as editor at The Hindu" to strike a balance between the two by removing the attribution for who initiated the departure. — Newslinger talk 18:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)