 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 July 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firstpost article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Contested deletion
editThis article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because its a news portal launched by well known media house Network 18 Group and as I mentioed it;s having alexa ranking as 1652 [1].Notable media persons like Rajdeep Sardesai and Sagarika Ghose regularly writes for this [2][3]. --Sandy (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
References
- ^ "alexa ranking". Retrieved 25 October 2012.
- ^ "Rajdeep sardesai for firstpost". Rajdeep sardesai for firstpost. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
- ^ "sagarika ghose writes for firstpost". sagarika ghose writes for firstpost. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
Move
editThis page should be moved to "Firstpost", per http://www.firstpost.com/about-firstpost. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Please delete this Article (FirstPost)
editThere are multiple issues in this article. There is lot of boasting in this article. There are no citations in this article. Lot of Weasel words and Peacock terms are there. There is absolutely no neutral point in this article. This newspaper is a highly biased media source, which publishes baseless stories. Please delete this (FirstPost) article, as soon as possible.
X3K3W9ZX4HXK (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Try WP:AfD. --Muhandes (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Request to delete the 'FirstPost' article as soon as possible
edit'FirstPost' is a nonsensical and utterly absurd newspaper. FirstPost is a troll newspaper. It publishes totally meaningless stories. They are also not aware that this is an Encyclopedia, and not their usual trolling magazine. They have published biased, baseless and boasting information. Neutral point of view is nowhere to be seen in this Encyclopedic article. This 'FirstPost' article should be deleted as soon as possible.
Z4X7KK7F3WX4H (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Try WP:AfD. Read about WP:SOCK too. --Muhandes (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"Tech2" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tech2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Add info about new prominent shows
editAdd info on the new show vantage by Palki Sharma Upadhyay that has started on 26th Jan 2023. J.wiki.16 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Misinformation sentence in lead
edit@Abhishek0831996 @Editorkamran Please explain why It posted misinformation on multiple occasions.[1][2]
is WP:DUE in lead. WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for it, and also read WP:BRD. Please do not engage in WP:SYNTH. I'll revert Editorkamran's revert.
References
- ^ Chatterjee, Swasti (2020-06-03). "News18, Firstpost Tweet Old Video Of Waterspout As Cyclone Nisarga | BOOM". www.boomlive.in. Retrieved 2023-07-11.
- ^ "Media misreport: Viral photo of grave with iron grille is from Hyderabad, not Pakistan". Alt News. 30 April 2023.
— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- About three sources have been provided that confirm Firstpost spread misinformation. Then there is Caravan, Scroll already mentioned on the section saying that Firstpost is serving as a mouthpiece of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP).
- It would be better if you don't remove the sentence "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions" from the lead. Firstpost is no different than OpIndia, and Swarajya (magazine). Editorkamran (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- The three sources, the two above and TheQuint - Varma, Aishwarya (2023-04-18). "News Organisations Falsely Claim Atiq Ahmed's Vote 'Saved' the UPA Govt in 2008". TheQuint. Retrieved 2023-07-12. - report on that misinfo coverage. I don't see a general trend of coverage of misinfo or other RS concluding the same that it becomes WP:DUE to go into lead.
- How is mouthpiece of BJP converting into posting misinfo? Please stop WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in general. You've been warned [1] — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 05:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes that warning was display of your own WP:CIR. You are better off without showing it.
- Three reliable sources are more than enough for concluding the fact that "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions". Read WP:SYNTHNOT and read the lead of many other articles such as InfoWars, OpIndia and Swarajya (magazine). They were edited by others in the same manner as this article's lead was, i.e. adding that the outlet has spread misinformation on multiple occasions and adding sources to mention those 'multiple' incidents. You are not supposed to set new rules on your own.
- I mentioned Firstpost being a mouthpiece of BJP because it tells about its credibility and nullifies your unnecessary attempts to remove a well-sourced sentence. Editorkamran (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I see 3 reports, which is already sourced in the body which I wasn't objecting. One of them was retracted with a clarification. I believe the sentence in the lead is rather WP:UNDUE absent any further sources that talk about it's misinfo reporting. BJP mouthpiece still need sourcing, altho something could be expanded from The Caravan and Scroll. Please spend the time in finding the sources, not on ad hominem at me — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Again, who is saying that Firstpost should be called a mouthpiece on the article? It is a fact that Firstpost is a mouthpiece of BJP.[2] I am calling it a 'mouthpiece' as a part of this discussion only.
- More sources that have caught Firstpost spreading fake news.[3][4][5][6] The sentence "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions" is completely justified. Editorkamran (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I see 3 reports, which is already sourced in the body which I wasn't objecting. One of them was retracted with a clarification. I believe the sentence in the lead is rather WP:UNDUE absent any further sources that talk about it's misinfo reporting. BJP mouthpiece still need sourcing, altho something could be expanded from The Caravan and Scroll. Please spend the time in finding the sources, not on ad hominem at me — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last statement "Fact-checkers have found the Firstpost to have posted disinformation on multiple occasions" is unsubstantiated and appears to be added by someone looking to discredit FirstPost for unknown reasons. I clicked the "references" cited and found no proof that FirstPost intentionally mis-reported anything. Instead I found that many Indian news sites had mistakenly shared an incorrect photo or information from an unknown source. In other research online I found FirstPost to be more accurate and unbiased than other new organizations. Ob1knob777 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Partly done: As "disinformation" is deliberate, I've changed the wording to "incorrect information", which is a reasonable summary of the next two sentences. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is still not justified. Many News/Media organisations regardless of their size have intentionally as well as accidentally posted misinformation while other media outlets such as NewYork Times and BBC are never targetted for misinformation. This is a deliberate attempt to target Firstpost which is a very credible international News/Media organisation. Just by adding 2 citations, one cannot discredit authenticity of news organisation. This seems very deliberate and obsessive attempt to ruin image of international news and media organisation because it has political and social biases just like every other news and media organisation. Kandarp.gautam (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
sigh
editIn 2023, it falsely reported that Atiq Ahmed's vote had ‘Saved' the UPA Govt in 2008. Would people stop putting saved in scare quotes? The word doesn't only have a religious meaning (and I don't see why the internet has to be full of atheists in any case). 2001:BB6:7A98:2358:F001:B12E:34D8:B145 (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- At least the quotation typography seems wrong. —Mykhal (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
This article has been vandalised
editThis article uses 1 or 2 inaccurate news reports or possible misinformation as a means to discredit all of Firstpost's journalism.
They mention these in the very 2nd sentence. This is a clear case of deliberate vandalism and in fact actual misinformation by someone that does not like Firstpost. ZeOmnipotent (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I too am not sure if it's a good practice to mention several maybe just random cases of misinformation in intro of the article. I don't know scene in India nor this medium except from single recent YT video I saw. I just tried to move it into new criticism section at the end. My attempts were labeled as "whitewashing". —Mykhal (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, I don't think it's a clear case of "deliberate vandalism" at all. The lede is supposed to summarise the content contained in the body, and the sentence that Firstpost has posted misinformation is a correct summary of content in the body. GraziePrego (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- You know what, I actually don't think that's right. It does feel undue to have this in the opening, I think it brings too much undue attention to criticisms made of the outlet. I will remove that sentence. GraziePrego (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Btw, I just wanted to retract my post for now, as I noted there's a dedicated talk thread here above about that; to study it more (and I also agree that this section name is not ideal). —Mykhal (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- You know what, I actually don't think that's right. It does feel undue to have this in the opening, I think it brings too much undue attention to criticisms made of the outlet. I will remove that sentence. GraziePrego (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, I don't think it's a clear case of "deliberate vandalism" at all. The lede is supposed to summarise the content contained in the body, and the sentence that Firstpost has posted misinformation is a correct summary of content in the body. GraziePrego (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change from provided missinormation to provide correct information" SonnuTayde (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just remove the misinformation part. Every media has provided misinformation knowing our unknowingly. Giving misinformation tag to only one of them is unfair. Fujimotor fan (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the misinformation line
editEvery media portal has posted misinformation at some point, whether knowingly or unknowingly, even the most trusted one. So singling out one of them doesn't make sense. Please remove this line. Fujimotor fan (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Misinformation showing the media house in bad light
editRecently, after the last infringement between India and Pakistan, many credible media agency wiki pages have been vandalized to portray them in a bad light; the misinformation comments echo this sentiment.also The sources posted have nothing to do with first post. Deliberate attempt to discredit the news agency Trusted source Fact-checker (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3 errors in tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands?) of pieces ... merits LEADING OFF with "has misinformation" ?
editI want so hard for Wiki to be taken seriously instead of being summarily regarded as dishonest, because of laughably transparent measures such as this.
So if you were to summarize the topic of Firstpost in 2 sentences, the second would say "misinformation"? Is that how encyclopedias work?
Well, what about at LEAST a half-measure even vaguely in the direction of encyclopedic credibility, by following up the later "misinformation bit" with "In comparison, the New York Times publishes an average of 9 retractions per month to address errors/corrections." [with the admitted number] 2600:6C56:6600:C516:B048:E0E8:5F46:AA72 (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Edit request
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request removing... Current Text: "posted misinformation on multiple occasions" Reason: Every media portal has posted misinformation at some point, whether knowingly or unknowingly, even the most trusted one. So singling out one of them doesn't make sense. Please remove this line The specific instances of misinformation has already been mentioned in a seperate section. 64.229.34.138 (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Not done: "Other news outlets post misinformation too" isn't nearly as strong an argument as you seem to think it is. The characterization of FirstPost as having repeatedly posted misinformation is adequately sourced, so it will remain in the article. Day Creature (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Misinformation
edit@Koshuri Sultan: This was added recently to the lede by you. Appears to be the second time you have been challenged over this and you need to discuss and gain consensus for this per WP:BRD. The sources cited are a disparate bunch which show instances of misleading/false news items but do not state that the outlet is a consistent promoter of these nor that there is a pattern as such, and none characterize the outlet at all beyond these instances. You are going to need much better sources than these to insert this into the lede which implies that the outlet is unreliable. Instances of controversies for RS abound: Criticism of the BBC, Al Jazeera controversies, CNN controversies, MSNBC criticisms and controversies, List of The New York Times controversies; but see how we treat their ledes.
From what I remember from past WP:RSN discussions, the outlet is considered generally reliable (though bias has recently become apparent that does not affect its RS status). You should either bring better sources or go for a broader discussion at RSN. The sources at present do not simply pass WP:DUE for the lede. Even for the body where the sentence was duplicated from, I would say is WP:SYNTH. Gotitbro (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:RS, we consider CNN, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, BBC and New York Times as reliable sources while FirstPost is an outright unreliable source. The sentence is not SYNTH as it only summarizes the prolonged history of FirstPost spreading fake news. Koshuri (あ!) 07:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Koshuri Sultan: Firstpost has been discussed at WP:RSN and is considered RS for India-related articles, that it is unreliable is your WP:OR assertion. Take it to RSN if you want to overturn past consensus/discussions and want a listing at WP:RSP.
- Bring sources which clearly/outright state that the source is unreliable or has consistently published misinfo/fake news. Fact checkers which list individual instances of it, cannot be WP:SYNTHesized as showing an apparent pattern and then used to impinge on the source's reliability. RS are not unknown to publish misinfo at times (as clearly shown above) that does not make them unreliable nor can we use these instances to characterize them as unreliable. Gotitbro (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Show the discussion where it was called reliable. It is an unreliable source and your whitewashing will not change that.
- Summarizing the content from body on lead is not WP:SYNTH. Same thing has been also done for other pages such as OpIndia. Koshuri (あ!) 07:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Firstpost is clearly listed as a generally reliable at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Clearly passed AfD similarly (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firstpost), the last dicussion at RSN while expressing caution for political topics did not label the source as unreliable. WP:OPINDIA (also interestingly enough cited by initial sock to make the same assertion) is a deprecated and blacklisted source at enwiki and has enough independent coverage to justify that. Comparing these two is simply unjustified. Start a renewed discussion at WP:RSN if you want. Gotitbro (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- It is absurd to cite WP:ICTFSOURCES because this discussion has nothing to do with Indian films. It has to do with the unreliable source FirstPost itself which is listed on WP:RSP as one of the publishers of undeclared paid news. You are engaging in WP:RGW here thus you need consensus to show FirstPost is a reliable source.
- FirstPost is an unreliable source. You are wasting time by disputing that. You can read recent reports: [7][8][9] Koshuri (あ!) 08:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NEWSORGINDIA has everything to do with sponsored content and nothing to do with their general unreliablity. Again instances of false reports are not unique to this outlet (or any outlet for that matter). Bring sources which state the source is unreliable or consistently promotes misleading/fake/false etc. news in their own words. We are not going to use disparate instances of fact checking and then impute unreliability as a whole on the source. If that were the case, we would be using PolitiFact to list quite a few US-based RS as unreliable in wikivoice which of course we don't do. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have listed the 2024 RSN discussion above, no determination of general unreliability was made there. Comments from uninvolved editors:
It's not quite as clear-cut for FirstPost, but with their usage of "Pakistani-occupied" rather than "disputed" or similar for the regions in question, I'm not sure if I'd trust them as an objective source on Indo-Pakistani territorial disputes. In short, I wouldn't consider them reliable for this topic. ... FirstPost is at best weakly reliable, use with extreme caution due to sensationalism and pro-Modi bias. On this particular topic, one solution would be to say something like "media supportive of the Indian government"
- So, yes as I stated above "the last dicussion at RSN while expressing caution for political topics did not label the source as unreliable".
- Both the RSP and RS determination can be taken to RSN and I advice you to do that. Rather than try and overturn past discussion and consensus unilaterally (at this article). Gotitbro (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion is good enough for establishing that FirstPost is an unreliable source, let alone comparing it with CNN, Al Jazeera, MSNBC and more contrary to what you are doing above.
- Yes many reliable sources have published misinformation but they would retract them in a timely fashion. FirstPost is nothing like that. Koshuri (あ!) 08:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Cautionary sources are not unreliable, and regardless to restore the content that you seek to insert you would need sources to explicity state that. These of course have been brought forth neither by you nor Abhishek0831996. Gotitbro (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Firstpost is clearly listed as a generally reliable at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Clearly passed AfD similarly (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firstpost), the last dicussion at RSN while expressing caution for political topics did not label the source as unreliable. WP:OPINDIA (also interestingly enough cited by initial sock to make the same assertion) is a deprecated and blacklisted source at enwiki and has enough independent coverage to justify that. Comparing these two is simply unjustified. Start a renewed discussion at WP:RSN if you want. Gotitbro (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Summarizing the content from body on lead is not WP:SYNTH. Same thing has been also done for other pages such as OpIndia. Koshuri (あ!) 07:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your edit summary here[10] is deceptive. I merely restored the sentence in May 2025 from an earlier version that was long standing version. More than 3 months have veen passed since, not "just a month ago". Koshuri (あ!) 07:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Koshuri Sultan: It was clearly removed after a discussion above and you restored without any resort to the Talk page. @ZeOmnipotent, Mykhal, and GraziePrego: Pinging those involved.
- And I just realized this exact content was first added by the blocked sock Editorkamran which led to a discussion with DaxServer even back then. Gotitbro (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- You are only proving my point that the content is staying for a long time, regardless of your highly selective WP: CANVASSING. Koshuri (あ!) 08:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your assumption of bad faith does not change the fact that the exact content you seek to include was originally added by a sock then removed after a discussion and then restored again by you. If pinging all past editors who were involved is "selective" might as well do away with the entire enwiki process. Gotitbro (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Odd that it is coming from you given you are removing sourced content, edit warring, and using misleading summaries. Just because an edit was made by a sock it doesn't means it has to be removed anyway. Koshuri (あ!) 08:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I will take anything added by chronic socks with a grain of salt. In this case the removal is entirely justified as a clear synthesis and from past discussion. Which simply cannot be ignored.
- The edit summary was neither misleading nor incorrect. You restored sock content which was clearly removed after a discussion. Accusing editors of edit warring while repeatedly ignoring past discussions on the very same thing is dismissive. That the exact same content that was added by a sock is being restored is already of concern, that this was done for other socks as well raises further questions. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Then you are totally wrong because you are not allowed to use sock factor when the responsibility for the edit has been already taken by someone else. If you are seriously attributing all these[11][12][13][14] edits to some sock then you are only causing more problems here.
- Your edit summary is misleading since you claimed that the edit was made only 1 month ago when it is standing for a much longer period. Koshuri (あ!) 08:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- And Grazie's last edit resulted in the removal of that from the lede based on the latest discussion (after the one between Dax and the sock) on the very things that have been repeatedly been asserted ever since this was first inserted here. Others are simply vandal rvs. Since both of you are choosing to ignore the ultimate previous discussion which lead to the removal, I will have no choise but to take this to RSN or similar. Gotitbro (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see if there was any consensus to remove the information or it had been removed by GraziePrego. Mykhal apparently retracted their statement so it would mean that there was no consensus to remove the sentence. Koshuri (あ!) 09:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The removal was instituted here after the discussion, regardless of the general statement for want of reading a previous discussion by Mykhal, their points initially raised stand. Abhishek0831996 had made a self-rv based on this very discussion after initially rving Grazie [apparently has changed their mind now].
- None of this addresses the substance of the dispute. I will wait for other editors to reply, if those are lacking a resort to RSN will have to be made.
- PS: As someone who is t-banned from a closely related topic area, I would tread very carefully if I were you. Ignoring past discussions, ignoring sock concerns and restoring sock content already raise much concern. Gotitbro (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you are saying that Abhishek made the removal based on that discussion (where he never participated) and the removal itself came more than a month later, then you are still not making any sense because Abhishek is the very person who made recent revert to restore content.
- You have to read carefully given you are falsifying the past discussions after being called out for using misleading edit summaries and edit warring. Koshuri (あ!) 10:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- No discussion has been falsified here, a discussion was had and a removal was instituted. "About a month ago" was not meant to mislead but was merely a quick observation that the edit was recent. I accept that the time wasn't exact, the point that it was recently instituted by you despite past discussions and no intimation to previous editors on the Talk page stands.
- Coming to editorial behaviour, users t-banned from Indian milhist articles who then add content closely related to it (insurgency, terrorism) and then engage in battleground behaviour around it should be very careful of where they stand. Gotitbro (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- And Grazie's last edit resulted in the removal of that from the lede based on the latest discussion (after the one between Dax and the sock) on the very things that have been repeatedly been asserted ever since this was first inserted here. Others are simply vandal rvs. Since both of you are choosing to ignore the ultimate previous discussion which lead to the removal, I will have no choise but to take this to RSN or similar. Gotitbro (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Odd that it is coming from you given you are removing sourced content, edit warring, and using misleading summaries. Just because an edit was made by a sock it doesn't means it has to be removed anyway. Koshuri (あ!) 08:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your assumption of bad faith does not change the fact that the exact content you seek to include was originally added by a sock then removed after a discussion and then restored again by you. If pinging all past editors who were involved is "selective" might as well do away with the entire enwiki process. Gotitbro (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- You are only proving my point that the content is staying for a long time, regardless of your highly selective WP: CANVASSING. Koshuri (あ!) 08:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Gotitbro you are wikilawyering at this stage. I don't see any sense in creating a false balance between those highly reliable news outlets with this unreliable outlet. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Abhishek0831996: Referring basic enwiki policies is not wikilawyering. You are aware of the discussion which led to the removal of this from the lede ([15]). Rather than choosing to ignore that, I would recommend you self-rv here. Gotitbro (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- No discussion ever led to removal of the sentence from lead. As already mentioned, you are talking about the 14 November edit, which happened more than a month after the last discussion was stale. You should consider it accidental. It was unrelated to any discussion. I was always supportive of keeping this sentence. I am also notifying WT:INB about this now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Abhishek0831996: Referring basic enwiki policies is not wikilawyering. You are aware of the discussion which led to the removal of this from the lede ([15]). Rather than choosing to ignore that, I would recommend you self-rv here. Gotitbro (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)