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 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)

Harshil169 Okay, thanks. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

I have reverted this edit 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 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

Please update the owner name: 'Quint Digital Media Limited (formerly known as Gaurav Mercantiles Limited)'. This is the reference link https://mmb.moneycontrol.com/forum-topics/stocks/gaurav-mercant/thread-message-86957459-88757459.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeCelvin07 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is a reference to a forum post, which cannot be considered a reliable source. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn This is the official notice link - 'Change in Name of the Company' https://www.bseindia.com/markets/MarketInfo/DispNewNoticesCirculars.aspx?page=20200929-52 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeCelvin07 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

​ Done in Special:Diff/979600981/981087417. Thanks for submitting this. — Newslinger talk 06:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

English and Hindi

The short description as well as the lead says that 'The Quint is an English and Hindi language ....' although there are articles from the media other than these two languages too. Hence, remove the reference binding to the two? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Quint is biased

It's a left leaning media and they have posted misinformation on several occasions. Please add that 103.218.133.36 (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 03:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2025

CR-1 (Change Request-1): As is the wikipedia convention for the news sites for all countries, third para in the history should be moved to a separate section "Controversies" towards the bottom of the article. For example, see BBC, CNN, ABC Australia, Washington Post, Zee News, Times Now, ANI, etc. It even fits within the guidelines and wiki convention for the living people, e.g. Vijay Mallya, Zakir Naik, etc.

Otherwise, it comes across that this still-being investigated alleged scam is buried in the history section against the wikipedia convention for the similar articles. It might not be deliberate, but it needs to be fixed by creating a new section "Controversies" per wiki conventions.

CR-2 (Change Request-2): Nonetheless, whatever the outcome of the CR-1, the third paragraph of history section mentioned in CR-1 ends abruptly with the defence of the alleged perpetrators (Quint and Raghav) and it is outdated with partial context only, again this might not be deliberate but needs to be corrected but adding the following full context and current status.

They are being investigated for allegedly making ₹1.14 billion out of an investment of ₹30.3 million made in a penny stock company called PMC Fincorp, for which Bahal filed a settlement application with the Securities and Exchange Board of India in relation to the alleged violation of the applicable SEBI regulations and settled with the SEBI without admitting violations. Enforcement Directorate (ED) also launched a parallel inquiry against Bahal and Quint for the alleged Money Laundering, and Bahal's petition to the Delhi High Court to quash the ED inquiry was rejected by the court.

Thank you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The addition of a "Controversy" section is poor style per WP:CRITS, and their presence in other articles is not a good reason to introduce the same problem here. This article already has "History", "Content", and "Reception" sections to present controversies in a more balanced way that avoids giving undue weight to negative reception. — Newslinger talk 12:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2025 (2)

Read my previous submission above on this talkpage and then please add the following subsections under the new "Controversies" section (and add a sub-section heading for CR-2 "Under investigation for tax avoidance and money laundering".

CR-3: As per the wikipedia convention mentioned in my previous submission, please add the following subsection under new "Controversies" section instead of burying those in the 'generic' section titled "reception". According to the wikipedia conventions, each of these deserve to be the separate subsections in the "Controversy" section.

===Allegations of Bias and Misinformation===
While The Quint's fact-checking initiative "WebQoof" claims to combat misinformation, it has itself faced accusations of bias. Critics and some analysts suggest that the selection of content for fact-checking, and the framing of their fact-checks, can sometimes reflect a particular editorial leaning. This raises questions about the neutrality and objectivity of their fact-checking efforts, with critics arguing that even fact-checking platforms can be influenced by inherent biases, thus contributing to a skewed narrative rather than truly combating all forms of misinformation.

CR-4: para 4, 5 and 6 of the "Reception" section must be moved to the new "Controversies" section with each para as separate subsection. See CR-1, CR-2, CR-3 for rationale.

• CR4-1: Move para 4 the "Reception" section under "Controversies" section with subsection heading "Quint's sting video on army soldier and his suicide".
• CR4-2: Move para 4 the "Reception" section under "Controversies" section with subsection heading "False news on Kulbhushan Jadhav and retraction".
• CR4-3: Move para 4 the "Reception" section under "Controversies" section with subsection heading "Allegations of Bias and Misinformation by Quint and WebQoof".

Thank you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The addition of a "Controversy" section is poor style per WP:CRITS, and their presence in other articles is not a good reason to introduce the same problem here. This article already has "History", "Content", and "Reception" sections to present controversies in a more balanced way that avoids giving undue weight to negative reception. — Newslinger talk 12:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)