Talk:Appin (company)

Source wording clarification

Hello. I am disclosing a COI per my user page and will not edit directly.

I noticed that the article currently states that Appin and Rajat Khare were the subject of “criminal investigations” in multiple countries (appears in several paragraphs).

The cited Reuters investigation (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-hackers-appin/) describes complaints, probes, and scrutiny by authorities, but I do not see the specific phrase “criminal investigations” used in the wording.

To align strictly with the source language and avoid potential synthesis per WP:V and WP:OR, I propose revising the wording to reflect the terminology used directly in Reuters (e.g., “complaints,” “inquiries,” or “probes,” depending on the specific sentence and source support).

I welcome input from uninvolved editors on whether adjusting the phrasing to more closely mirror the cited source would improve accuracy. PreciousPraise (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting WP:V and WP:OR. The Reuters article clearly describes Appin and Rajat Khare being implicated in multiple criminal investigations. So the claim itself is obviously verifiable and not original research.

There is an argument you could make about phrasing but the absence of the literal phrase “criminal investigations” in a single source is not compelling. Brandon (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Expand founder details for balance (COI disclosure)

Full disclosure: I am editing on behalf of a client interested in this article (per WP:PAID). My goal is to suggest improvements that maintain neutrality and are based strictly on existing reliable sources.

I’ve been reviewing the article and noticed that the infobox and lead currently list only “Rajat Khare and Anuj Khare” as founders, based primarily on the Reuters source [2]. However, to better reflect the full context from that same source and avoid implying the company was a “one-man operation” (which could skew neutrality under WP:NPOV), I suggest a minor expansion.

The Reuters article states: “In December 2003, Rajat Khare along with high school friends conceived Appin to offer technology training workshops to university students.” This clearly indicates that Rajat did not found it alone, there were multiple “high school friends” involved from the outset. The article later notes Anuj Khare joining by 2005, but the initial conception involved a group.

This isn’t about adding unsourced names or details; it’s about summarizing the existing reliable source more completely in the lead and infobox to show Appin as a collaborative startup, not dominated by one individual. For balance, especially since much of the article focuses on Rajat’s later role, this would help present a fuller picture without giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE).

Proposed changes:

• Infobox “Founder”: Change to “Rajat Khare, Anuj Khare, and others” (or “Rajat Khare and associates, including Anuj Khare” to reflect the “high school friends”).
• Lead sentence: “Appin was an Indian cyber espionage company founded in 2003 by Rajat Khare along with high school friends, later joined by his brother Anuj Khare.” (Directly quoting/paraphrasing Reuters.)

This keeps everything tied to the current sources and improves accuracy. Thoughts? Would love input from other editors.

FestusJoe (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:PAID requires you to disclose your "employer, client, and affiliation" not simply that you are editing on behalf of a client. It seems odd that we have two COI disclosures in rapid succession -- usually an article subject is working with a single editor. Are you related in any way to (or coordinating with) @PreciousPraise, who disclosed working for Appin?

Is there a basis to say Anuj Khare was involved in founding (infobox)? It seems like the identity of the friends is left unstated, and that the most you can say is what's in the prposed lead sentence. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Oblivy: Thank you for the prompt response and for highlighting the need for a fuller disclosure, I appreciate the guidance.

Per WP:PAID, to clarify: I am being compensated by an individual associated with the Appin company (specifically, a representative connected to co-founder Rajat Khare) to propose neutral improvements to this article based on existing sources. I have no personal affiliation with Appin beyond this paid arrangement, and I'm committed to following all Wikipedia policies.

As for any relation or coordination with User:PreciousPraise: No, I am not the same editor, nor am I coordinating with them. This is an independent proposal, it's possible the timing is coincidental given shared interest in the topic. If there's any concern, I'm open to further clarification or review at WP:COIN or elsewhere.

On the content side:

- You're right that the Reuters source [2] doesn't explicitly tie Anuj Khare to the initial founding (it notes him joining by 2005), and the "high school friends" are unnamed. To avoid any overreach, I agree we shouldn't expand the infobox beyond what's clearly supported, perhaps leave it as is or note only Rajat if that's the consensus.

- That said, the lead sentence proposal ("founded in 2003 by Rajat Khare along with high school friends, later joined by his brother Anuj Khare") still aligns closely with Reuters' wording without adding unsourced details. It provides a bit more context from the source to reflect the collaborative start, helping with NPOV by not implying a solo effort. Would that (or a close variant) be acceptable, or do editors feel it adds UNDUE weight?

Thanks for the thoughtful input, I am eager to hear more from you or others to reach consensus.

FestusJoe (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have made the requested change to the opening sentence. With regard to founders I have removed Anuj as it is not well supported, but not adding the friends. @Brandon has been through these sources more recently than me so feel free to modify if I'm wrong. Oblivy (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you @Oblivy FestusJoe (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Add Tarun Wig and Ishan Gupta as co-founders (with sources)

Hello editors,

Following earlier discussion about making the founding description more complete (thanks again to Oblivy for implementing the "high school friends" phrasing), the buyer/client has asked to include Tarun Wig and Ishan Gupta as additional founders, with Anuj Khare described as a mentor.

I have reviewed the sources provided:

• https://timestech.in/innefu-labs-ceo-on-ais-role-in-security-deepfake-threats-elections/ — Tarun Wig self-describes as co-founder of Appin Knowledge Solutions.
• https://www.mybinternational.com/articles/1003364/i-was-always-inspired-to-be-an-entrepreneur-tarun-wig — Tarun again self-describes as co-founder/director.
• https://fliphtml5.com/eraqv/pjqs/ROBOTICS/5/ — Book published by Appin lists Ishan Gupta, Tarun Wig, Rajat Khare, Anuj Khare in the technical team.
• https://about.me/tarunwig — Tarun's self-profile lists co-founder role.
• Other links (Times of India 2004, appintechnology.in) mention Anuj in a seminar/mentor context but not as co-founder.

These appear to be primary or self-published sources. Under WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB, they are not strong enough on their own to override the Reuters report (which is the article's main source and only names Rajat + unnamed high-school friends + Anuj joining later).

Would editors be open to a compromise wording in the lead/infobox such as:

Lead:

"Appin was an Indian cyber espionage company founded in 2003 by Rajat Khare along with high school friends Tarun Wig and Ishan Gupta, later joined by his brother Anuj Khare (who served as a mentor)."

Infobox founder:

Rajat Khare, Tarun Wig, Ishan Gupta

This keeps the strongest source (Reuters) dominant but adds the names per the client's request and the weaker sources.

If this is still WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTH, please let me know, happy to adjust or withdraw. Full COI disclosure remains: paid editing on behalf of a representative connected to Rajat Khare.

Thoughts?

FestusJoe (talk) FestusJoe (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. What's the gambit here? There are dozens of high quality sources that describe Rajat Khare as the principal of Appin. Why are we trying to use low quality sources to implicate other people? Does this improve the article or just Khare's PR strategy? Brandon (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Brandon: Thanks for the input, fair point on the source quality and Reuters' weight.

The goal here isn't to downplay Rajat Khare (who is clearly the main figure in all high-quality coverage). It's just to reflect that multiple independent-ish sources (TimesTech interview, MyB International profile, FlipHTML5 book credits) name Tarun Wig and Ishan Gupta in founding/early technical roles, and the existing lead already says "along with high school friends" (per Reuters).

To keep NPOV and avoid UNDUE, how about this minimal addition in the lead and the infobox.

Like:

"Appin was an Indian cyber espionage company founded in 2003 by Rajat Khare along with high school friends including Tarun Wig and Ishan Gupta, later joined by his brother Anuj Khare."

This stays very close to Reuters while briefly noting the names from the provided sources. If that's still too much or synthesis, I'm open to alternatives.

Would you (or another editor) be okay making that small tweak, or should I? just trying to get consensus on a balanced summary.

Thanks again,

FestusJoe (talk) FestusJoe (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Brandon that the sources given are low quality sources we would not usually expect to see as support for claims in an article. About.me is self-published, one is a self-promoting interview, one is an interview where the word "Appin" only appears in a question and not in the answer, and a self-published book published by Appin itself. As opposed to the independent article from a reputable outlet that doesn't mention any of these people. Oblivy (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The company started as a cybersecurity training firm. Unless there are sources that implicate those people along with Mr. Khare as being involved in cyber espionage, it doesn't seem prudent to include them in the lead of an article primarily about cyber espionage. Brandon (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Brandon: @Oblivy: Thanks again for the feedback, I appreciate the points on source quality and the article's focus on cyber espionage.

You're right that Reuters (and most high-quality coverage) centers Rajat Khare as the principal, and the other sources are weaker/primary. The intent isn't to "implicate" anyone in espionage, just to complete the existing lead sentence ("along with high school friends") with names that appear in early company-related materials (TimesTech, MyB, FlipHTML5 credits), since those people are already tied to Appin's training origins.

To keep it minimal and NPOV -compliant, how about limiting the addition to a single brief phrase in the lead only (no infobox change):

"Appin was an Indian cyber espionage company founded in 2003 by Rajat Khare along with high school friends including Tarun Wig and Ishan Gupta, later joined by his brother Anuj Khare (who served as a mentor in the training programs)."

This stays anchored to Reuters' wording while noting the names from the client's sources without giving them undue prominence or implying espionage involvement. It improves completeness without changing the article's focus.

If this still doesn't work or feels like synthesis, could one of you suggest a version that does fit (e.g., move names to a footnote or history section)? Or if you're okay with the tweak above, feel free to make it — I'd defer to your judgment.

Thanks for helping refine this. FestusJoe (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I am opposed to the spirit of the proposed change, regardless of phrasing. The source material (e.g. Reuters, RSF, TechDirt, EFF, The New Yorker) name Rajet Khare alone as having any significance to the contemporary Appin. The founding of the company is already given appropriate coverage in the history section, including additional founders in the lead or infobox is giving the information undue weight that is not faithful to the source material. Brandon (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. If the high-quality source material is giving little weight to a fact that's a strong signal that the fact is not worthy of much weight. It would violate WP:UNDUE to include them in the article particularly based on self-serving claims from the proposed sources Oblivy (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Brandon: @Oblivy: Thanks again for the feedback, I see the strong consensus on source weight and UNDUE concerns.

I’m not trying to override Reuters or give the names equal significance, just completing the existing lead sentence ("along with high school friends") with who those friends appear to be in early materials (TimesTech interview, MyB profile, FlipHTML5 credits). The names are tied only to the training origins, not the later espionage period.

To keep it as low-weight as possible, would a footnote work? Example:

"Appin was an Indian cyber espionage company founded in 2003 by Rajat Khare along with high school friends. Later joined by his brother Anuj Khare."

This leaves the main text untouched (100% Reuters) and puts the names in a barely-visible note. If even that is too much per UNDUE.

Yes or no on the footnote, or any other wording suggestion? FestusJoe (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I've since edited the article and that sentence no longer appears. Brandon (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you FestusJoe (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Brandon, The article is about the company Appin, not about Rajat Khare as an individual. A portrait image of him appears out of context because the page is not a biography.

Did you think it’s needed on the page? FestusJoe (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The Apple Inc. and Microsoft articles both have photos of their founders. What is different here? Brandon (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should add the picture others then. FestusJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

What freely licensed photo are you suggesting be added? Brandon (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is for Tarun Wig

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gbvbv6wm4_Vx095UuEz18kAN1CVNOgJW/view?usp=drive_link FestusJoe (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is the combined of it:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1m1Kjw_87gg578zwNFx2IogclTCLujFkG?usp=drive_link FestusJoe (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rajat Khare.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A newer account turns up a week after I add the photo to nominate it for deletion on Commons, curious. Well at least the above conversation about adding more photos is now moot. Brandon (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Brandon, I also really suggest that photo should be deleted, it’s not needed on this page. FestusJoe (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@FestusJoe do you have any connection with @Zaydon Finn or or did you have any communication with them about this? Oblivy (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

No @Oblivy, I don’t have any connection or communication with @zaydon Finn at all FestusJoe (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Appin (company)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Brandon (talk · contribs) 16:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: VortexPhantom (talk · contribs) 13:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This will be my first GAN review. I'll try my best and work efficiently. Thank you ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I will update table as I progess. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Seems good to me.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	From the Earwig's copyvios detector, I found exact sentences match, indicating likely a copyvios.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Many editor have COI, but since edit protection, I doesn't think it will occur from now.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only company's logo is used, and justified by it's rationale of usage of non-free image.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

There is serious issues regarding copyvios, many sentences have copied from [1] and Reuter's published sources. , like :-

• "hack-for-hire powerhouse that stole secrets from executives, politicians, military officials and wealthy elites around the globe."
• "The New Yorker fully stands behind the piece, which is an accurate and fair account on a matter of legitimate public interest. We will continue to defend the right to publish important reporting without fear and favour"
• "what RSF described as an attempt to "flood the Internet" and "drown out the troublesome investigations". Additionally, an Intelligence Online article was the subject of".

These phrases must be paraphrased instead of copypaste. I see it as quick fail criteria 2 of WP:GAFAIL as per criteria and likely rejecting if not addressed. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
I am reopening this review as per Special:Diff/1347766453. I see that copyvios issue has been resolved and completing the rest review. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Brandon, I think article needed to lay more emphasis on neutrality, I see that there are serious legal issues with company, however to maintain neutrality, we should also add "what is said by company operator ad key persons involved with company" to defend themselves from all these. I think you should work on it, as that it is only written in lead section (brief description) and not in other section. Although it may hack for hack company, we should maintain neutrality. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added further rebuttals in a similar tone to the Rajat Khare article. Brandon (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

In lead section, Change "provided hacking services" to "reported to provide hacking services" ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"Appin-linked hackers" to "hackers linked to Appin." ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Lead section doesn't tell much about company's early days as technology training startup. Hence, should be added. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

History#Private Sector operation, In 2010, Khare sent emails to..., be changed to " Khare was reported to send emails to.... ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

In lead section, Change "provided hacking services" to "reported to provide hacking services"

I don't think the sourcing or policy (WP:YESPOV / WP:ASSERT) supports this change. Is there any reliable source that contests Appin offered hacking services? Khare's lawyers dispute his personal involvement, and that rebuttal is already carried inline in the lead - but no RS disputes the company-level fact.

I've made changes addressing the remaining feedback. Brandon (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you are right here. No RS disputes companies involvement. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Major aspects of company have been covered which is good sign indeed. In my glance, it can now meet GA criteria overall, however, I am concerned that much of the article is dependent on Reuter's report (ref no.2), and not sure, how this is affecting the article. There are serious allegations and I, not have much experience in how to handle all that stuff. Also, some phrases can be more corrected. Some quotes need to paraphrased. I thus, inviting a second reviewer for these reason. I believe their advice may help. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@OrtexPhantom: @Brandon: Thank you both for the careful GA review.

I agree that neutrality WP:NPOV is very important here. The article currently relies heavily on investigative reports that describe serious allegations, but it gives very little weight to the company's own position and the lack of any formal legal outcome. To make the article more balanced and neutral, I suggest the following small, sourced adjustments:

1. Lead section – "provided hacking services"

Current: "that provided hacking services to governments..."

Suggested: "that **was reported to have provided** hacking services to governments..."

(This reflects that the activity is based on media investigations rather than any court conviction or chargesheet.)

2. Shift to mercenary hacking

Current: "the company had shifted to mercenary hacking by 2010"

Suggested: "the company **was reported to have** shifted to mercenary hacking by 2010"

(Again, this keeps the sentence accurate to the sources while noting it is an allegation, not a proven fact.)

3. Rajat Khare leaving the company

The current text mentions in passing that Khare left "in part because rogue actors were misusing the company's brand." This is an important point that provides context and balance. It should be given slightly more prominence in the lead or history section, as it directly addresses the possibility that later illegal activities were carried out by former associates rather than the original company.

4. Google / former employees clarification

The article currently says "Appin-linked hackers" and "former employees went on to found other hack-for-hire firms." To avoid implying that Appin itself continued the activities, a brief clarification could be added (e.g., "hackers linked to former Appin employees") so readers understand the distinction between the company and individuals who left.

5. "Ongoing legal actions" against Rajat Khare

Current wording gives the impression of active, ongoing court cases. In reality there are no current indictments or charges. Suggest changing to "has been the subject of legal actions and media investigations" (removing "ongoing") to be factually precise.

These changes would make the article more neutral without removing any reliably sourced information. They simply ensure the reader sees both sides clearly, as the reviewer has already noted is important.

Happy to discuss or adjust the exact wording. Thank you for the thorough review. FestusJoe (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting WP:NPOV. Every single reliable source, without exception, supports the claim that Appin provided hacking services. This is not a court of law, and a conviction is not required for a statement to be presented as fact (WP:YESPOV). "Was reported to have" is textbook WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED language. I'd ask that this good article review be left to uninvolved Wikipedia editors rather than paid editors working on behalf of Rajat Khare. Brandon (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Brandon, I requested opinion from a experienced reviewer, not from who has declared a COI itself for article. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)