Talk:Tek Fog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

May be Misleading or Fabricated

This is heavily reliant on one source, one which has been called into question. Calling anything completely "fake news" is preposterous since that concept is heavily rooted in conspiracy theory, however this particular news source may not be credible and it seems like there are few independent sources aside from it. This article may need to be heavily edited for accuracy and bias, and should be reviewed by a moderator. AgentOrangeLeaf (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)AgentOrangeLeaf

Propaganda

this article is heavily dependent on the source which is thewire.in because many times in the past cooked up some imaginary articles. this picture should be reported for pending verification as well as people should be careful right hosting things from a propaganda Network masquerading as a news Outlet Changisgod (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2409:4063:4D94:99C8:0:0:F608:A10F (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There Is no authentic record for to proof this app is even exist --2409:4063:4D94:99C8:0:0:F608:A10F (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Deletion

The Hoax seems to be created to target specific people and group and has no relevant backing for correctness. Also, The article is highly sourced from the wire (India) which was involved in many fake news in past.

~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Source

The article is highly sourced from the wire (India) which was involved in many fake news in past. Article should be source better or deleted.

~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide legit links for what you are saying: "that TheWire has been involved in fake news" And let me just say, OpIndia is not a credible source Tanyasingh (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely false narrative by Devesh Bhatta. Some fake news is being spread by almost every single news agency in India but The Wire is the most reputable of them. This user Devesh is simply fulfilling an agenda. The Wire is NOT a fake news site. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.226.142.11 (talk • contribs)

Any sources other than The Wire?

Why are you afraid of letting people make edits? The one source you quote has been widely discredited. 103.245.70.5 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is not other source than The wire. All other reports are sourced from The wire.

Check my comment here Talk:Tek Fog#Contested deletion

1. The wire - The wire is not credible source, it has been fined by the honourable courts for spreading many fake news and false claims.
2. Deccan Herald link - it say opposition leader (Rahul Gandhi) claims based on the wire, again claim from opposition is not consider as fact.
3. The Hindu. - same as above opposition party asking for investigate based on the wire report.
4. Tribuneindia New - same as above opposition party asking for investigate based on the wire report.

~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... this is not a hoax. Multiple internationally reputed and reliable sources are included as reference to verify the article. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Which internationally reputed and reliable sources ?

~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

See Tek Fog#References Venkat TL (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

1. The wire - The wire is not credible source, it has been fined by the honourable courts for spreading many fake news and false claims.
2. Deccan Herald link - it say opposition leader (Rahul Gandhi) claims based on the wire, again claim from opposition is not consider as fact.
3. The Hindu. - same as above opposition party asking for investigate based on the wire report.
4. Tribuneindia New - same as above opposition party asking for investigate based on the wire report.

~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There are 10 sources, not 4, in the list Tek Fog#References. What about Le Monde and Quartz (publication)? Have you read Primary, secondary and tertiary sources ? Venkat TL (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is of high importance to stop misinformation spread in India. People need to be made aware of Tek Fog and this page is of public importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.226.142.11 (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion

I agree with deletion suggested by Ping @AgentOrangeLeaf, Changisgod and others. Ping @User:MelanieN as admin to take note. Dhawangupta (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

this article shall be deleted . as this app is imaginary so does this article is Lelemera (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock.

Rationale for adding Template:POV and Template:One source

Template:POV has been added since the article uses terms such as "spread propaganda", "harass critics" etc. which has been pointed out by User:MelanieN in the talk page section 'Imaginary???'. Template:One source has been added since the article relies largely or entirely on a single source or on different sources which are entirely/largely based on a single source (The Wire). Do keep in mind that WP:DRIVEBYTAG states that "There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page". Rockcodder (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If WP:BESTSOURCES say it's used to spread propaganda, the article will also have to say it. Neutrality can't be used as argument for WP:FALSEBALANCE. hemantha (brief) 11:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

10 sources including international publications like Le Monde and Quartz (publication) have been added. So clearly this is not one source case. You are free to add more sources. The terms that you are disputing are reliably source in quote format. If you have a better suggestion, you can propose them below to gain consensus. In addition these sources listed below are independent of the Wire report. By no stretch of imagination can this be called a one source case. Venkat TL (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The lead is filled with statements that were either reported by The Wire, found by The Wire or told to The Wire. And all four references in the lead either quote sections from 'The Wire's investigation' or are parts of said 'investigation'. Is this not enough to justify that if not the entire article, then at least the lead relies largely on one source? Rockcodder (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder following your suggestion. I have added a summary of the response section into the lead along with the (unrelated to wire) reference. Venkat TL (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I have not suggested anything of that sort, thus I have reverted it. I have moved information regarding The Wire's investigation from the lead to a section of its own. This would be an amicable solution, wouldn't it? Rockcodder (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And I have reverted your undiscussed controversial edits. Please read and follow MOS:LEAD. Dont remove summary of the article from the lead. Other sections will also be expanded. Venkat TL (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Our problem of this article being heavily reliant on one source (The Wire) has not been addressed yet. Every reference and statement provided in the article can trace its origin back to 'The Wire's investigation'. Essentially, what has happened is that a series of articles written by one source (The Wire) has been made the basis of other news reports. These news reports then lead to reactions from opposition leaders, which are then made the basis of more news reports, all of which are then made the basis of a Wikipedia article. What more do you need to prove that this article relies largely or entirely on a single source? It would not be appropriate to remove the tags until a report/investigation independent from 'The Wire's investigation' is referenced in the article. By the way, all 5 references provided by you above, which you claim are 'independent of the Wire report', are news reports about reactions from opposition leaders/parties to news reports about Tek Fog. Meaning that even these trace their origins back to The Wire's report, thus reinforcing my point of this entire thing being reliant largely or entirely on a single source. Rockcodder (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Every BOFORS allegation can be traced back to leaks by Sven Lindstrom. Every PRISM source can be traced back to Snowden. Does that mean those pages can be tagged single-source? Please read WP:V and WP:RS more closely. hemantha (brief) 07:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: And what about the Template:POV tag? The Wire is not exactly known for its neutral reporting as can be seen from this RSN discussion. A Template:POV tag must be added and it must stay until the article is re-written following a neutral point of view. The article, in its present state, is written as if The Wire's reports were gospel truth. Things must be presented as allegations and not as facts. Rockcodder (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're repetitively asking same questions; I've addressed NPOV already, above in my first reply to you. Multiple people have addressed the Wire question. Your framing of that discussion is so completely wrong that I have to question whether you read it in complete or just the single post you link to. hemantha (brief) 08:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and had no problems understanding it. I don't have a problem with the use of reports from The Wire or from other reports quoting The Wire since it's considered a reliable source. My problem is with the way this article presents these points. It is quite clear that the RSN discussion considered The Wire a non-neutral source. Hence its reports must not be presented as facts but as allegations, but this article fails to do that and hence requires a Template:POV tag. Rockcodder (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a warning: don't edit war, you could be blocked. Work out your differences here on the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove/Rename the Further reading section

All the links mentioned in that section are already present as references. If it seems like a good idea to separate the reporting from The Wire, from the other references, then WP:REFGROUP can be used. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Imaginary???

The article claims that Tek Fog is an imaginary app, and then cites numerous sources saying how it is being used. Is it imaginary or is it real? That needs to be clarified based on sources.

The article also seems very biased; I will remove the claim in the lead about "leftist writers here" which is unsourced and not encyclopedic. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@MelanieN an IP user had vandalized the page repeatedly since last several hours. I have reverted the article to the version before his edits. Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that it is now semi-protected; that should help a lot. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

And I see that it still needs work to become neutral. Used to "spread propaganda"? and "harass critics"? I'm glad to see that there are several of you working on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if it’s imaginary, but it seems the wire uses Wikipedia to spread propaganda and manipulate people AshutoshGugnani (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete the article

There is no official source to this even the article is vague Mentions it as an imaginary app AshutoshGugnani (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Authenticity of this article

I am not understanding how Wikipedia allows such an article without many citations. Moreover, the article has lot of contradictions. Beerapparnaik (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What contradictions? — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Fake news

Wikipedia is a credible source of information for me and many other. Information to this platform cannot be sourced from a place like ' the Wire' which is already unpopular for giving out fake news. Also Wikepedia cannot be a way for firms like 'the wire' to get their agendas running. Any information cannot be published without being approved by atleast 10 sources. Only then can it be a fact and not a random agenda driven political accusation. 223.226.84.217 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge credibility of The Wire as a source, you might want to take that to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. One look/search in the archives indicates that been no consensus in deprecating it as a source.

Furthermore, it is not just The Wire reporting this, but also several other sources. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 08:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Imaginary app

As per OpIndia TekFog is an imaginary app. Please quote any source other than thewire.in 103.16.12.45 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is consensus among Wikipedia consensus that OpIndia is not a reliable source. More reliable sources are required. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 08:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this is not "obviously invented".

The Wire is a credible source according to Wikipedia's own standards.

If we like, we can add a sections and talk about news portals that are denying tek fog . But this page should not be speedily deleted, i see no reason to do that. --Tanyasingh (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The wire is not credible source, it has been fined by the honourable courts for spreading many fake news and false claims.

~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Devesh.bhatta : Please cite sources for your claim. Tanyasingh (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/Barabankipolice/status/1408109672733634565

https://scroll.in/latest/957945/fir-filed-against-the-wire-editor-for-allegedly-spreading-fake-news-against-adityanath

https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/fir-filed-against-the-wire-editor-siddharth-varadarajan-for-spreading-fake-news-against-up-cm-yogi-adityanath Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

These are only accusations and does not prove anything. UP CM is angry with their journalism. Venkat TL (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A decent critique

• Bansal, Samarth (2022-01-15). "The Wire's Tek Fog Investigation: A futile search for evidence". The Interval.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSSELF, self-published sources are not reliable, especially in this instance where we have no disclosures about affiliations, sponsorships or conflicts of interest. Please do not incorporate it into the article, it fails WP:RS - Naushervan (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have same thoughts as Naushervan. This is a self published blog. Venkat TL (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Rework needed

The article repeats the content of the Wire article as facts. They need to be treated as accusations until proven. This article needs a POV tag. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 08:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It does need the POV tag . Also the improper treatment of allegations as facts without any attribution seems problematic and misleading for the readers. As mentioned by @MelanieN and others, this page is sourced in its entirety or in large part for The Wire, affiliated media houses, and other news outlets that have drawn from the Wire report. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding tag as per above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This has been explained at length before. I didn't reply because nothing new had been brought to this discussion by the newer posters who appear to have missed the discussion above. To recap, 1) if all WP:RS say the same thing, article will also necessarily have to say the same thing 2) All wikipedia articles "repeat" content of WP:RS, can't add WP:NPOV on that argument. hemantha (brief) 10:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree, if there are specific problems, then I would be happy to resolve them. This general hand waving seems nonconstructive. This tag cannot be used to deface the article. Since no specific issue was pointed, so I support the removal of the tag. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The specific problems have been stated above prior to your comment. These are expanded as below :

1)The article states allegations levelled by The Wire as facts- However, these should be addressed as allegations, since none of these have been proven, and The Wire in its report accepts that many of its accusations could not be verified by the authors. Thus, suitable language such as "Tek fog is an application allegedly used by", "It was said to have been used to", etc.

2)The article is is sourced in its entirety or in large part for The Wire, affiliated media houses, and other news outlets that have drawn from the Wire report. That means attribution is very important.

3 User:Venkat TL, you were already told on DYK that this claim should be attributed and you agreed to attribute it on DYK. It is confusing as to why you can't attribute it on the main article?

POV tag does not mean that the page is misleading, but that it hasn't been written in an NPOV fashion. Therefore, it needs POV tag till article reaches a NPOV form. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

All necessary attributions have been provided. The Wire has been mentioned 29 times in the Tek Fog article. I sincerely hope you are not trolling me here. Again the POV tag cannot be used to deface the article. If a particular line is missing an attribution, point it here and it will be changed if necessary, with consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I donot understand your fixation with individual lines, when the article clearly needs to be largely reworked. However, be that as a may, I am willing to go line by line as per your preferrence. Keep in mind this is likely to be a long conversation.

Line 1 should be "Tek Fog is an application software allegedly used by the information technology cell of the Bharatiya Janata Party as part of their social media campaigning to spread propaganda, according to The Wire."

Reasoning:-This is the version reflected by the sources that you have included yourself, and as stated above by hemanta, Wikipedia must reflect the same content as WP:BESTSOURCES. Apart from The Wire, most if not all other sources you have cited take care to state that the app was used "allegedly" by the BJP, not as a certainty. These include articles from QZ, The Print, The Hindu, and so on. The very source you have used as a citation in the first line itself states, "Social media operatives apparently affiliated to India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) use a specialized app to hijack Twitter trends, harass critics, and spread propaganda through defunct WhatsApp accounts, according to a new investigation by The Wire".

I donot see how an allegation can be stated as fact. The matter is still under scrutiny, and unless it its existence and usage by specific persons is verified by a third party or by the courts, it cannot be treated as fact. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you dispute any of the points/and or do not agree with the suggested revision in the first line, kindly point out your reasons. Otherwise if there is a consensus I will edit it to reflect that.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with the Wire, take it to WP:RSN. It won't be resolved by arguing here. As of now, it's an acceptable source and there's no need to append 'according to The Wire' to every sentence in every article on wikipedia that uses it as a reference. hemantha (brief) 08:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not the issue being raised here, I donot see how it can be misconstrued as such. The issue is that The Wire article is as of yet an allegation, not a fact. I am sure you are not contesting that?

Kindly provide valid arguments as to why my suggested edit is not valid. Why should the article not reflect what is consistently written by multiple WP:RS? I would recommend the same edit I proposed earlier in my post on 07:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC).Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

On fact vs allegation, please see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia articles aren't about what editors believe to be facts, they are about what reliable sources report. If you don't dispute Wire's reliability, then why see their findings as allegations? hemantha (brief) 10:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia should reflect what sources report, not what a single source reports. I have previously brought up several articles clearly referring to it as an allegation, not a fact due to the obvious lack of third party verification. Further, you responded, on 10:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC), that ""1) if all WP:RS say the same thing, article will also necessarily have to say the same thing 2) All wikipedia articles "repeat" content of WP:RS, can't add WP:NPOV on that argument"". I would like to point out that the same applies here as well. Most if not all articles of note apart from The Wire specifically denote it as an allegation, as I have brought up earlier, thus we need to ensure Wikipedia reflects that. Even the QZ article cited as source for the first line clearly calls it an allegation, and carefully attributes to The Wire. The article should reflect what a majority of WP:RS report, not what a single article reports.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is no further opposition to my proposed edit, i would like to follow through with it. If you disagree, kindly make your reasons known.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the change in this comment, "allegedly used ... according to Wire" is repetitive. "according to Wire" is same as "allegedly". hemantha (brief) 17:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I wished to include the alleging party in the opening statement as well, since that would effectively summarise the entire article succinctly. Especially since the citation is of an article not of The Wire, but written through reference to The Wire, we should follow the wordings used in majority WP:RS(The relevant material has been provided above with sections in bold). Would that be admissible according to you?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to ask, go ahead and make changes. If reverted, discuss on talk. My objection here was about NPOV tag only. "Allege" is used only in Telegraph and IE, not majority as you say, so I prefer sticking to "according to". hemantha (brief) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Ill go ahead and edit it out. I would like to point out though, QZ calls it "apparantly"- Which also means the same thing (From Cambridge dictionary,"used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true/used to say that something seems to be true, although it is not certain"). Le Monde does the same in French. Bloombergg uses "Reportedly".Newsclick uses "allegedly". And apart from the sources discussed, there is no other article about the actual app- Rest are about reactions to the report.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Amend it as objectionable claim and not as a proven fact

There is no evidentiary substance which proves the case and no ruling by any court has been given. A reliable website like Wikipedia should hold high integrity by not publishing articles like this. 223.184.150.247 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out by User:Kautilya3, Wikipedia relies on the views of a majority of WP:RS. If you have reliable sources to supplement your requested edits, kindly post them. If such sources are unavailable, edits will not be carried out.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Template Who

@Lettherebedarklight: user:Venkat_TL seems to have taken issue with your "who" inserted into the lead. Could you clarify what changes you wanted to be made to the article so that it could be improved and the notice removed.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp uhh, diff?? i have no idea what you're talking about. 晚安 (トークページ) 07:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp oh. a "employee-turned-whistleblower" is quite vague and should be given a name, or at least "preferred to remain anonymous, 晚安 (トークページ) 07:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. @Venkat TL: Make the required corrections as needed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp we dont need a clerk here. @Lettherebedarklight Please check what the reliable source call them. As far as I can see the article is inline with the RS. Venkat TL (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Uhhh what? Didnt get the part addressed to me, but continue with your discussion with the editor.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That was probably my phrasing. We don't put names of individuals on pages unless they are our sources or public figures. Please see WP:BLP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Storm in a tea-cup. The "who" tag is completely unnecessary since the context makes it clear they are highly likely to be anonymous, and this is confirmed by the source, which describes them in exactly the same terms as the article (except the source points out that its identification is based on what the claimant claims to be...). Furthermore, yes, the name of the whistle-blower is utterly irrelevant as they merely triggered the investigation, which produced the information on which we're reporting. Venkat might have been a bit heavy-handed on the edit-summaries, but is quite correct that the tag is not needed. Elemimele (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, no one seems to have any issue with this anymore.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Contested Edits.

As per consensus achieved previously, I have edited the article to reflect WP:NPOV and have written certain parts of the article for that purpose. Any editor with disputes is requested to discuss their claims here instead of edit warring.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Going through the sections above, I can see that it's only you who is advocating for these changes. That's not a consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have also expressed similar sentiments to Hemantha. The Wire's investigation report represents a WP:PRIMARY source and its information has to be stated with attribution. Secondly, The Wire has only been able to establish the technical aspects of the system, not the political ones. Those remain claims, made by the unidentified whistleblower. See the Washington Post state this explicitly. So terms like "allegedly" and "reportedly" are needed link the BJP to the software. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see hemantha or anyone else before you here making this arguement? (nevermind, misunderstood that Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)) The primary source is the whistleblower's account and the app itself, a news publisher in this case, The Wire is a secondary source that has analysed and evaluated the primary sources and published their investigative pieces. The first news publisher that breaks a story doesn't become a primary source, for a hypothetical, the NYT breaking a story based on say Wikileaks makes the former a secondary source and the latter the primary source. I am not opposed to attribution itself, in some cases it may be necessary but doing so for every bit of information even established ones that have been reproduced by other secondary sources is not appropriate.

The Washington Post piece seems fairly convinced about their involvement; for instance where they describe Devang Dave of the BJP youth wing being named as the supervisor of the Tek Fog operatives as an exposé. They also use "reportedly" which is not the same as "allegedly", one demonstrates more conviction and I'd say using that can be considered, it doesn't seem to be established but there is strong evidence for it and when no RS has contested or rejected it, "allegedly" should not be used. Some of Indian sources are similarly restrained but that is to be expected, though there are of course others like The Wire, Quartz, Le Monde, etc which describe their involvement as a fact without any such qualifiers. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post said, "They [The Wire] said it had India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's "footprints," but didn't definitively tie it to the party." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The Hindu said, "On January 6, The Wire had reported that people associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) IT cell were purportedly using the Tek Fog app... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you link me which Washington Post article states that? Because that line is not present in the one I linked above, I haven't found any other. The article states "...A browser-based application was reportedly used by the BJP to infiltrate social media platforms in order to spread misinformation, target female reporters and home in on anyone it deems an opponent ... The Wire article named Devang Dave, a former head of social media at the BJP’s youth wing, as a supervisor of the Tek Fog operatives. Following the expose, Dave released an email to The Wire in which he denied that the party had ever used — or known about — a secret app to manipulate public opinion. The BJP, the most well-funded of all Indian political parties, has been an early adopter of information technology. It has harnessed the power of databases and its well-equipped IT cell to target voters. But a misogynistic and abusive app meant to instill fear among journalists and critics goes beyond the pale of acceptable political marketing ... For some of the reporters who have been subject to attack, the revelations are a vindication — even a relief..." Also The Wire pieces do tie it to the party so that sentence would not make sense.

And yeah The Hindu article which about the parliamentary panel does use "purportedly" for the link with the party, but then there is Quartz article which is about the app itself and uses "apparently" but then goes on to state that "...The investigation is among the clearest pieces of evidence yet of the BJP’s orchestration of online propaganda and hate speech. The party’s "IT cell"—shorthand for hired social media flunkies—includes a vast number of real people manually pushing out content and hate speech..." or Le Monde article which plainly describes it as a "revelation". So for RS it appears to be more definitive then allegedly would imply although perhaps not completely established. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My edit summaries were totally accurate. The wording used by me was specifically to modify the article to align with the majority of what WP:RS are referring to. From the reports cited in the article, QZ calls it "apparently"- Which also means the same thing (From Cambridge dictionary,"used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true/used to say that something seems to be true, although it is not certain"). Le Monde does the same in French. Bloomberg uses "Reportedly".NewsClick uses "allegedly". The Wire is WP:PRIMARY. And apart from the sources discussed, there is no other article about the actual app- Rest are about reactions to the report. In light of this, I had suitably modified the article to reflect that most WP:RS were terming it an allegation, unlike the article which implied it was a matter of fact. This has been stated earlier as well. If you have valid reasons for reverting my edit, kindly make them known.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, some of the reverted edits were not controversial as well-2 out of the 3 changes I made were relating to formatting the article in a sensible manner. I see no correlation between a long list of capabilities of Tek Fog to be succeeded by "Political corporate nexus". Being a Political Corporate nexus is not a "feature" of the app. I do not see how moving it to the appropriate section(Organisations Involved) is considered "inappropriate" hereCaptain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, I told you specifically that "allegedly ... according to" was repetitive and yet your first edit was to add it exactly like that. If you aren't willing to read others' comments, especially brief ones like that, you can hardly expect others to read paragraphs of your talk or collaborate with you. hemantha (brief) 05:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You had replied but aren't you expected to conform to standards of providing proper attribution?

Going by your comment, you had supplanted that personal opinion of being "repetitive" by falsely claiming that most articles did not use the recommended language, stating " "Allege" is used only in Telegraph and IE". Under the very same comment, I have attached a list of articles, encompassing all reports quoted in the article about the app and the language used. I would recommend that you go through the same.

Washington Post clearly attributes to The Wire in each and every line. It also spends a much larger part talking about allegations being refuted by concerned parties, hence maintaining NPOV. Its opening statement is, "Indian publication the Wire spent two years investigating the Tek Fog app. They said it had India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's “footprints,” but didn't definitively tie it to the party". That is a very different story from what the article showed prior to my edits.

NewsClick does the exact same, what you refer to as "double" attribute. "The investigative report uncovered a vast operation with alleged links to Bharatiya Janta Party's (BJP) IT Cell and its youth wing, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM)". This was not reflected by the article prior to my edits.

Quartz writes, "Social media operatives apparently affiliated to India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) use a specialized app to hijack Twitter trends, harass critics, and spread propaganda through defunct WhatsApp accounts, according to a new investigation by The Wire, an Indian publication." This was not reflected prior to my edits.

Le Monde writes, "C’est peut-être la plus élaborée des opérations de manipulation politique en ligne jamais découverte : le site d’information indien The Wire révèle, jeudi 6 janvier, l’existence d’un vaste système de manipulation des messages sur les réseaux sociaux en Inde. Mise en place, selon les investigations du média, au profit du parti hindouiste ultraconservateur Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), parti du premier ministre, Narendra Modi, cette opération, toujours en cours, est gérée par le biais d’une simple application pour téléphones : Tek Fog." This was not reflected by the article prior to my edit.

Given that no other source has been cited, apart from The Wire (primary), in relation to the application itself, I am unable to understand the reasoning behind attempting to maintain the POV that the report be treated as absolute fact, regardless of the reservations expressed by a majority of WP:RS. Since the majority of WP:RS show double attribution for clarity, I am at a loss as to why it should not be replicated here according to you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That's an impressive misrepresentation of the WaPo article, whose opening statement is "For much of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s nearly eight years in power, the relationship between social media platforms, journalists and India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has been nasty and vitriolic, and almost always murky. Now we can start to understand why." while the sentence you quoted is nowhere to be found in the article, not to mention there is no "allegations being refuted by concerned parties" in it let alone a "a much larger part".

The sentence "C’est peut-être la plus élaborée des opérations de manipulation politique en ligne jamais découverte" translates to "This may be the most elaborate online political manipulation operation ever uncovered" which is irrelevant to whether it is linked to the BJP while "le site d’information indien The Wire révèle" translates to "Indian news site The Wire reveals". Neutral point of view is defined as representing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" without editorialisation and the RSes appear convinced enough whether you like it or not.

In addition if you actually read WP:PRIMARY, it gives the example, "a witness is a primary source of information about the event" i.e the whistleblower whereas The Wire pieces include "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" which makes it WP:SECONDARY. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Which WaPo article are you talking about? There is only one WaPo article used as citation, and that clearly states everything I have written. The Quotes taken from the article are word for word, not a "misrepresentation", impressive or otherwise. I have not introduced new sources or material, merely referenced the sources used to write this Wikipedia article and edited it accordingly.

I would recommend you to go through the article. If you wish to be technical, it spends 490 characters to provide the allegations, and 445 characters and an infographic for the refutations.

That aside, the article you are quoting, is a reproduction of an article by Bloomberg, and it has been specified as such. The bloomberg article in itself is an opinion piece, and therefore not a WP:RS for NPOV.

The Le Monde article reference was about clearly and unambiguously stating that the source was the Wire, in the first line itself.

Your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY seems to be incorrect, due to the fact that the primary source of information is The Wire, not the unknown whistleblower. The information put forth has been done largely by the Wire's investigation, which uses the source's story as mere indicators, and relies on its own work as evidence. Further, since none of the Secondary sources have access to the individual- The Wire is the only source of information from the whistleblower and hence Primary. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That's an obscure interpretation of primary which neither reflects practice nor has coherency. Accessibility is irrelevant to whether sources are primary or secondary. Most primary sources are not readily accessible and that does not make secondary sources which have access to it not secondary. The product (i.e the app) and those associated with its creation and operation (the whistleblower, etc) are primary sources, an independent news publisher investigating it and publishing details about its operation is a secondary source in much of the same way any news publisher covering any story is.

Anyways, I'm not going to bother explaining this to you anymore considering you have latched on to any arguement that limits or exempts the use of The Wire which has provided the most in depth coverage of the app. In the AfD you were claiming it is not a reliable and when that didn't work out, you have come to this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a narrow assessment of my edits, many of which have used The Wire as a source. My issue was with the fact that "Secondary sources" use the "Primary source" as the basis of their reports. In this scenario, since the only publication that has access to the individual whistleblower is The Wire, no other publication has been able to as of now publish a report with the whistleblower as its source. If there comes a time where multiple newspapers publish a story/Interviews with the individual, then these may be used as Secondary.

Also, there seems to be a disconnect between what you are saying here and what you have said elsewhere, that we state the matter as reported in the general media. I am not opining that The Wire be discarded as a source entirely- I am opining that The Wire not be taken as the only source, and we present whatever is represented by most WP:RS. If I have inadvertently given such an impression, I apologise. I have expanded my views in a reply toyour post below, I hope you can find the time to go through it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wire investigation is pretty definitive about the capabilities of the application. But The Wire has not established any definitive link between the BJP and the application. Siddharth Varadarajan has said it quite clearly in the video programme published by The Wire [1]. The secondary sources reflect this. The Quartz may be convinced about the BJP connection. But it is not weighty enough to override Washington Post, Bloomberg columnists, Le Monde etc. We can't jump the gun here guys! Calm down and wait for things to take their natural course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, I have also now re-read the three pieces of The Wire. A few points though, The Wire has not only established its technical capabilities but also that it has been used to propagate pro-BJP disinformation and target dissidents, what it has not definitively established is an organisational connection of its use with the BJP. Secondly, Le Monde and the Bloomberg columnists, and not only The Quartz indicate a degree of conviction of their involvement (based on the wording of their articles) and all four have published their reports in the early stages when The Wire had only published its first piece (of the three). This is from the appearance of it still a developing story so I don't disagree that we should wait. My primary concern is that while we shouldn't definitively state that there is a connection at this stage, we should reflect the degree of conviction that most sources have and shouldn't be implying that there are doubts over the investigation itself unless something emerges, such as a publication in a reliable source that does so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article an opinion piece, and so fails WP:RS for NPOV. You can cite people from it, or attribute to it, but Op-eds cant be used to decide a Neutral point of view since they are reflections of the authors personal beliefs and not a factual report. Currently, sources seem to express varying degrees of belief in the assessment, so it is my view that the report should maintain both possibilities atleast till the time a official report (either the parliamentary report or a court order, if such a case is filed) becomes available.

However, I agree with your closing statements. My arguments were not with the technicalities of whether we should use "allegedly" or "reportedly". My issue was with the report relying solely on The Wire, as it earlier (prior to the edits made throughout this conversation) stated all aspects of the investigation as fact. As long as the language used maintains neutrality and is representative of general media, it does not seem to be an issue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Both possibilities of what? Nothing in The Wire reports themselves have been contested by a reliable source so there's nothing wrong in stating "all aspects of the investigation as fact". And no, the sources do not have a "varying degrees of belief in the assessment", they have a degree of belief regarding the connection between the use of the app and the party although not complete affirmation which reflects The Wire reports themselves. If you do agree with my statement, this comment makes no sense. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

After all that you have said, Im unable to understand your objections. Again, if your issue is with the technicality of just how much confidence a particular word suggests, then it does not seem to be an issue. Make an edit, and discuss if reverted. If you go through The Wire report, the tone and word usage is distinctly different from that of majority WP:RS - Though you may argue, if you wish, about the degree of conviction they write with. The article, prior to our series of edits, was littered with poorly sourced unencyclopaedic language like "Tek Fog is an app used by the BJP to spread propaganda" which does not maintain NPOV, which was the major source of my issues.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp edits were made without consensus and remvoed. Venkat TL (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Uhh what edits have you removed? Could you please post a diff? Because Im not able to see any changes.... Anyway, I doubt you can expect me to wait more than an entire month for people to reply.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content from section on Automated messaging

CapnJackSp please explain your undue removal of valid sourced content here [2] from section on Automated messaging Venkat TL (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

1) Undue removal would be an interesting way to put it 2) You could have pinged me, but no issues now that I have seen it.

On the content I removed, the exact same stuff is covered in much more detail in the same section, in the sub sections above it. I dont see why we need to keep repeating the same points over and over.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not same. Please self revert and restore the content. Venkat TL (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Venkat, you need to explain why it is not the same.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The section called Database of private citizens for targeted harassment had a quotation. I checked the citations and found that the citation at the end of the paragraph did not support it. But a different citation did, so I have added that citation in two places where they are needed to support content. The claim that the database is centralised was not supported. The source does support that it is an extensive and dynamic cloud database, so I have deleted centralised and replaced it with words that are supported. If someone does have a source that directly supports the claim that it is centralised, then by all means re-add this, but please do not delete that it is a dynamic cloud database without stating a good reason.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The section on Automated messaging should have a statement explaining that the database mentioned previously in the article was used by app users to send the harassing messages. The statement does not necessarily have to be the one deleted by User:CapnJackSp, but it should make the link between the database and the harassing messages. Otherwise readers might think that the database and the harassing messages were unrelated activities. The cited source makes it clear that the one is used by the generators of the other.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Could you please look over the changes I made to the sentence? It looked broken to me, so I connected the two sentences without really changing anything.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about this edit. It is fine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: You would be welcome to discuss why you wanted the material reintroduced, in this section. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User:CapnJackSp reintroduced the word centralised and put the following citation next to it:

• Sanghera, Tish. "Tek Fog: Indian government weaponises social media". FairPlanet. Retrieved 28 February 2022.

The citation says that app users sent automated replies with phrases dictated by a central document to harass key individuals. But that is about the content of the messages, not the database.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, made a few changes now. Do look it up. I think the centralised document that Tayi wants me to reintroduce isnt a database, but a google sheet as given in the wire report. Would be more precise to call it that.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging the section "Military grade psychological operations weapon" to Reactions.

There seems to be no reason to have an entire section denoted to the reaction of a single person, when there is already a much larger section for Reactions from professionals and other sources. If any editor has an alternate view, they may express it. Otherwise the two sections should be merged.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This noted security researcher is discussing the features of the app, while others are outraging over the app. They are not the same. This should not be merged. Venkat TL (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case, either move it to the section which talks of the features of the app or reword the paragraph and merge with Reactions, perhaps under a sub header. It does not seem appropriate to have a separate section for a single opinion.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Do you have a rebuttal? Or are the proposed edits accepted?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This IS THE section that talks about the features of the app. It will be expanded with more content. Venkat TL (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The features of the app have been listed under "The Wire Investigation". If you want to merge them into this section, it will need a better title. I am fine with this as well, no issues.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How can we add stuff in wire section, that is not from wire? Venkat TL (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we can add a separate section, under a title similar to "Features of the app". I had made such an edit before (was reverted without reason, have not yet been clarified why), which listed the "military grade psyops" part as an introduction, and below it listed the features with an attribute to the wire. That is what I meant by "it would need a better title". The current format seems out of place- Unless there are several experts calling it a "military grade psychological weapon", I dont see how we can justify a separate section just for it. You can go through my edit here(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tek_Fog&oldid=1066322199) and describe any issues. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Carried out due to lack of response. Let me know if there are any issues with the edit done. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

reverted as made without consensus --Venkat TL (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Tek_Fog#Contested_Edits. for the reply, the same comment.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That section is not about "Military grade psychological operations weapon". You did not make consensus for your edits and rammed your proposal into the article. Kindly revert and follow dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edits implementing your unsuccessful proposal have been reverted here Venkat TL (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

1)I did try my best at dispute resolution. You vanished from this page for a month, how long did you expect me to keep waiting for your response? If you stall BRD by waiting a month between replies, there can be no constructive discussion here.

2)The "military grade psyops weapon" is a claim by only one expert, and it is a well fit in the place I had given it, where it served to describe how the capabilities were new and like a military psyops weapon. Why do you think this particular opinion deserves a separate, disconnected, abrupt section of its own with no connection or order with other sections?

3)Regardless of the fact that this was, in my opinion, an absolutely unnecessary edit, it does not seem to be worth my time to argue why this particular edit is unneeded when the entire article is a mess, and will need to be completely reworked in any case. A few edits here or there which degrade the quality of the article for the time being do not seem worth my time fighting over, when they are bound to be replaced eventually anyway.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:CapnJackSp version	User:Venkat TL version
Tek Fog App	Military grade psychological operations weapon
The Wire, in its report, described the app as being capable of several actions, characterised by internet security expert Anand Venkatnarayanan as a "military grade psychological operations weapon". According to him, so far such capabilities were only accessible to state actors who used them against the populations in enemy countries. "Putting such a weapon in the hands of non-state actors affiliated to a political party contesting for mind space of citizens in a democracy has never been done before."	Anand Venkatnarayanan, an Indian internet security researcher and author of book on information warfare, said that Tek Fog is a military grade psychological operations weapon. So far the capabilities that are part of Tek Fog were only accessible to state actors who used them against the population in enemy countries. He said, "Putting such a weapon in the hands of non-state actors affiliated to a political party contesting for mind space of citizens in a democracy has never been done before."

References

If you are going to put things into quotation marks, they have to be an exact quotation. MOS:SCAREQUOTES says Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The "military grade psychological operations weapon" is not an exact quotation. The source says Tek Fog is a military-grade PSYOP — psychological operations — weapon. We also need to be cautious. Bloomberg News put Anand Venkatnarayanan's words in quotation marks when they were quoting him. When we are quoting Bloomberg News, but not repeating a quotation they made from Venkatnarayana we must make it clear who we are quoting: Bloomberg News or Anand Venkatnarayanan. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1, thanks for putting them side by side. PSYOP (check the article) is the abbreviation of Psychological operations. I am not sure why they have used a dash instead of Brackets. In my version I have taken care of attributions while summarizing the main points he said. Are there any more improvements you suggest in my version? Venkat TL (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is an issue with the expansion of psyops, then we can write it as the abbreviation too. No issues from my side there. Only issue here is with having a separate section, otherwise feel free to change anything to a version you want.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There are two issues: (a) Putting a paraphrasing of statement into inverted commas. Policy is that that counts as editorialising by Wikipedia editors, and should not be done. (b) Should the paragraph be in its own section. It makes it easier for someone skim-reading the article if it has a clear heading above it like it does in Venkat TL's version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree, but I will not argue for now. The article needs to be substantially rewritten, a few changes will not make much difference. Till that time, no problem letting Venkats version stand as he does not seem to be in a mood to cooperate constructively, especially with the sort of accusations he has been casually throwing at me on ADE. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

BJP qualifier in the lead

MSG17 is right here it should be in the lead as it is important detail that the reader must know to make proper sense of the article. We should not assume that everyone knows it. CapnJackSp what benefit will the reader have if you remove this relevant piece of information from the lead? Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

1)No ping, I wouldnt have even noticed this if it hadnt shown my edit as reverted. 2) Venkat, if an edit is reverted, common etiquette dictates that you discuss before trying to reinstate it.

As for the material, it is still there in the lead, as it was earlier, for the readers benefit. I dont think expanding upon that anymore is required. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You are already watching the page and reply within minutes anyway. So I will save the effort. As I explained, it is required. Why do you want to hide that BJP is the ruling party in India from a reader not aware of Indian ruling party? For the same reason, any international article mentions this in the first or second line, see Quartz for example. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Was watching my contribs, showed up as reverted. And it was there in the article. Content responded to below.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Originally the article did not had this tag, it was added few days back without consensus and now it has been removed. Please generate consensus to add the efn tag. Venkat TL (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What? YOU were the one who added the note (see [diff]) about a month ago. If you want to remove the note entirely then no issues. At most the POV description can stay as a note, especially in the lead. First, you revert twice without consensus, and then you accuse me of edit warring? You need to self revert here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My opinion evolves. Do you have a problem with that? As for the self revert, you are claiming that it was me who added it, and now i have removed it. So the self revert you are asking me to do has already been done. So dont ask me to self revert. Finally, I think it would be more helpful if instead of splitting your hairs on who did what and when, you focus on the topic of the discussion. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Essentially both versions say the same thing.

• BJP is a Hindu nationalist political party in power in India since 2014
• (BJP), the right-wing Hindu nationalist party that has been the ruling party of India since 2014,

Does anyone dispute that BJP is right-wing?

The footnote solution would be the right solution if it were many sentences long with citations to reliable sources for its content. It is not. So having it as a clause works.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. This is another major reason. Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)