Talk:The Quint

Does the topic like Tax evasion included in the wiki pages.

This is a bit of discussion that do we add such topics like tax evasion coz every other media are alleged and do this now and mentioning is good but is it good to add a whole sub section on it.? Edward Zigma (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

uamaol and Mdaniels57 can you please elaborate the reason why these sections have to be added in this articles when the case is already going. Nether court nor any one else has given the judgement. Edward Zigma (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You are removing content which is firstly well sourced, and secondly is controversial. If you have an issue with the content you can offer what you claim using reliable sources instead of original research, that being your own testimony. Regarding the other user, It appears they simply reverted unexplained removal of content (vandalism).UaMaol (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it good enough to be made into a whole section? If you want to add it then add a controversial section. And whatever you want to. First you advocate quimt being misinformative which it is not. Do you have source. Then you add an unsolved case a whole section which mislead the people. I can add it into controversial section. Edward Zigma (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: If you have an issue with it being a section, then why not rename it to "Controversy" or better still add it to the "History" section. It appears you already did the first one so what was the point of your original question if you have changed it yourself? I have never made any such advocacy of the subject of the article being misinformative. Do you have a source for this unfounded accusation? Adding well sourced content which a vandal has removed is not spreading misinformation. If the controversies mislead people, I suggest you add this to the section adding your reliable sources, assuming of course you have reliable sources to back up such claims. Removing already existing content without a valid reason is vandalism, and based on your previous behaviour, it appears you are trying to censor the Encyclopædia. Please see WP:CENSORUaMaol (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://scroll.in/article/897932/income-tax-raids-on-raghav-bahl-quint-and-news-minute-raise-questions-of-media-intimidation). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. AddWittyNameHere 02:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Note that at least one employee from The Quint have been caught editing this article, removing sourced criticism and adding blatantly promotional material, in violation of WP:UPE and WP:COI and WP:PROMO and WP:COPYRIGHT. Such additions should be reverted on sight and may lead to additional protections on the article. It's breathtakingly inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yamla, please check and block editor who has same editing pattern. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. That looks like WP:MEAT and WP:PAID. --Yamla (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Primary Source

As Vanamonde93 has already pointed out to you (Harshil169) earlier; winning obviously notable awards does not require a secondary source. ∯WBG^converse 05:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the tag[1] from the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

KartikeyaS343, that award is not notable. Ramnath Goenka award is notable. Hence, tag was not required. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

I have reverted this edit[2] as it is not adhering to WP:NPOV. It is to be noted that the Wire is a competitor as mentioned on their article and thus not an independent critic to be included in the LEAD section. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: someone is back again to remove negative sourced details. Please look at them. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean someone is back again? Can you please comment on your POV pushing? You inserted in the lead section, "critics have also dubbed their journalism as 'overzealous and irresponsible journalism". Can you please clarify which critcis? This is clearly cherry-picking of a title from a single source! --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

KartikeyaS343, critics means the ones who write for the reputed publications and criticise media. @Yamla:, please pay attention to editing behaviour and personal attacks on me. He is calling me POV pusher. This is same as Sumesh Dumar, Sharan and Prakash Pandey. Also, Quint's website has profile on name Kartikeya. I have off-wiki evidences and can send you in email. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:Cherrypicking again. You didn't answer who are the critics? A single link from a competitor website cannot be included in the lead section. I have been here for several months and your blatant accusations to link me with other editors is somewhat personal attacks. @Yamla:, you are an admin, please check this editor's contributions which has a history of POV pushing in different articles. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• As per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." whereas you are quoting an opinion piece from the Wire[3] in the lead section. The publisher of the content itself wrote a note at the end of their article that they were competitors of this subject. If you have multiple independent sources that support your claim then only you can include this in the lead otherwise the place is in the body, not the lead. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)