![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Not seeing any more RS; will move to SPS territory, which will be obviously attributed. ∯WBG converse 12:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Winged Blades of Godric: Why don't you add portal's claim form this article?-- Harshil want to talk? 11:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Winged Blades of Godric: here’re few suggestions for the article:
I’m looking for your response regarding these changes. If you don’t get then let me try to do them once, you can check, I’ll revert and then we can have consensus about it. — Harshil want to talk? 17:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree with V93. ∯WBG converse 10:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I have to say looking at the sourcing it only seems to be notable for being a bit crap. I am leaning to maybe this is not really notable at all. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't see all of this before
adding quotes of OpIndia's statements that were reported in
The Economic Times. Personally, I think OpIndia's responses are
due because they were published in a reliable source, and they show OpIndia describing its political leanings in its own words. If this is excessive, you could trim it down to one quote instead of two. (The "
ontological positions"
quote is probably the more essential of the two.) —
Newslinger
talk
19:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
"The IFCN construes our disdain towards the ' left-liberal narrative' as evidence of bias. It appears they do not realise that these are our ontological positions on the basis of which we operate."– This quote establishes that OpIndia believes in a "left-liberal narrative" and operates on the basis of that premise.
"This whole business of ' neutrality' or being unbiased is a sham. These so-called fact-checking networks should actually be allowing what they call 'biased' outlets, so the sum total is neutral."– This quote shows OpIndia's editor admitting to bias (in stark contrast to OpIndia's [https://www.opindia.com/about/fact-check/ "Non-partisanship policy"]).
The IFCN's rejection of OpIndia disqualified the website for fact-checking contracts with web properties owned by Facebook and Google. [1]
References
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Earlier edits are incorrect - optindia is a very fair news channel ; NO FALSE NEWS EDITS ARE NOT TRUE - please investigate AzaadBharat1203 ( talk) 18:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Starting a new section since the section above have become unwieldy and veered off the point. The original version of the article as has been re-instated now does seem to have a degree of WP:NPOV violation as well. The paragraph that I would bring to attention is this one.
Paragraph
|
---|
A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines selectively targeting the leftists, liberals and Muslims. [1] Islamophobia was noted to be a dominant theme, achieved either by selective manipulation or outright faking. [1] The political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) and mainstream media was a favorite target of their vitriol; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. [1] |
Even though it does state it is from a report from a specific media (all three citations are from the same article, in fact), the wording of the paragraph is editorialised with the usage of words such as "vitriol" and the sentence structure may make it seem like following lines are not referring to the same report. One also ought to mention that OpIndia does openly subscribe to being right wing, are opposed to "left liberals" and provide their stated justifications of the stance. The article does have an certain negative tone as of now. Other than that, I do not see any other bias. The citations of it having published fabricated stories are from varied and reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Paragraph
|
---|
AltNews has documented the site to be a significant purveyor of fake news, in India. [2] In May 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), an affiliate of the Poynter Institute, rejected OpIndia's application to be accredited as a fact-checker; [3] among a variety of reasons, it noted political partisanism, poor fact-checking methodologies and general polemic commentary accompanying their news-pieces as significant contributors towards the rejection. [4] The rejection disqualified OpIndia for fact-checking contracts with web properties owned by Facebook and Google. [5] The wesbite has a topic titled Media Lies List through which it has accused various media organisations such as The Wall Street Journal, India Today and Scroll.in among others of spreading fake news and propaganda. [6] The portal claims to have a policy of no-partisanship, [7] however the editor-in-chief Nupur J Sharma has clarified that they do not claim to be ideologically neutral. [8] A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeted at leftists, liberals and Muslims. The cultivation of prejudice against Muslims was classified as a dominant theme in the report, achieved either by selective manipulation or outright fabrication. The political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) and mainstream media was noted be a prioritised target of polemic commentary and fabrication; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Bharatiya Janata Party. [1] OpIndia has organised an ideological seminar in collaboration with another fake-news website and featuring prominent figures from the Hindu nationalist intelligentsia. The seminar was noted to be vitriolic in conduct, with accusations on the mainstream media being funded by Naxals and Jihadis. It endorsed the propagation of communally charged conspiracy theories about the Kathua rape case, equate the Shaheen Bagh protests to the formation of a mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse. [9] |
Why do people create sock accounts? This is editing in bad faith. I wonder if they get paid for the same.
As regards to consensus is concerned, me and Shubham Johri agree that discrediting and declaring OpIndia as fake news should not be a dominant theme of this article.
Misreporting needs to be mentioned though, it can be mentioned in subsection called Criticism. Shubham2019 ( talk) 08:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Some links point to search results of the word 'OpIndia' on other websites, not a single article. These results are bound to change with time, may not always be critical of OpIndia and do not substantiate the charge of spreading fake news. A quick search of the keywords 'Newslaundry' and 'AltNews' on the OpIndia website yields similar claims of them spreading fake news, and it is evident that these proclaimed fact-checkers compete with each other. Shubham Johri ( talk) 02:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Yunshui: Respected user, I had no intention of being deeply mendacious. The comments were made in continuation with Liz's welcome message. There was no sign below so i attributed them to Liz. Another user Mr. Doug Weller has edited that page to reflect the same. I misunderstood an unsigned comment. I have every intention of upholding the principles and best practices in Wikipedia. Shubham2019 ( talk) 14:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I am sure i missed that comment earlier or i would have replied to it. Just to set the record straight Liz did not mention anything about this article on my talk page. Kindly do not consider that part in this discussion. 03:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham2019 ( talk • contribs)
"IFCN certified fact-checkers AltNews and Boom (among others) document the site to be a significant purveyor of fake news, in India.[11]"
The citation is a list of search results of the keyword 'OpIndia' on the AltNews website, not a single article. This list is bound to change and the search results may not always be critical of OpIndia. There is no clarity about who is included in "among others" and no link for Boom. AltNews does not make any allegations like "significant purveyor of fake news in India", which is an arbitrary opinion, and simply calls OpIndia as a right-leaning website.
A quick perusal of the search results reveals that AltNews and OpIndia regularly make allegations and counter-allegations. AltNews should not be used for references in this article. Wikipedia is not a place to settle grudges.
Newslaundry, another rival media house, is not even IFCN certified. It is not a reliable source.
The first para under Reception may be retained, but the rest should be deleted. Shubham Johri ( talk) 02:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I've started a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Newslaundry at WP:RSN § Newslaundry on OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Newslaundry is reliable because it won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards in 2015 and the Red Ink Awards in 2018 and in 2019. Newslaundry is not a fact checker and it has never applied for IFCN certification (as the IFCN only certifies fact checkers). OpIndia has never won any awards. As of now, no editor has been able to locate any positive coverage of OpIndia in reliable sources. OpIndia's claims do carry any weight due to OpIndia's unreliablity. It is improper to create a false balance between OpIndia's claims and the claims of Alt News, Boom, and Newslaundry, because the IFCN-rejected OpIndia is unreliable, while the IFCN-certified fact checkers and RNG Award-winning publication are reliable. — Newslinger talk 03:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
First line says OpIndia is a 'fake news portal'. The citations provided are from TheWire, Newslaundry, Dawn and Altnews.in, all of which are rival media houses ideologically opposed to OpIndia. They regularly slander each other in the name of 'fact-checking'. They are not reliable sources.
The BBC link only mentions websites that have published fake news at least once.
None of the articles linked in citation [1] call it a 'fake-news portal'.
The first line should be changed to "OpIndia.com is a right-wing news and current affairs website which focuses on politics and media in India", which is how OpIndia describes itself on YouTube, Facebook and its own website, "fake-news portal" should be removed. Shubham Johri ( talk) 00:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)— Shubham Johri ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi WBG and Shubham2019,
This is a note about the previous section.
It's interesting that IFCN's denial of membership stems from the fact that OpIndia does not entertain left liberal views. [1]
The fact that IFCN rejects OpIndia's membership application because it prefers to focus on right leaning views is a complete different thing from the ability to objectively assess if the right leaning fact is correctly presented. If anything it brings out a possible bias of IFCN.
Stated another way an organization that focuses on Cricket as a sport may be biased to it, but to be denied IFCN membership because it may not report Soccer facts accurately is quite controversial. One's bias and one's objectivity may be two different things.
Infact Wikipedia's own policy on Reliable Sources under the heading of Biased Sources acknowledges this, that biased sources need not be inaccurate. The bias may be a focus on a certain topic and need not mean its being presented incorrectly. [2]
Hence the Wikipedia lead section to the OpIndia page that has a single line which disparages a good organization, '...and has propagated fake news over multiple occasions.[3]' is incorrect, malicious and needs a correction.
A number of other reputed media outlets including the BBC could have been factually incorrect. Why should such an observation not be made of them then?
I would request an edit of the lead section. I'd be happy to draft it if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.183.84 ( talk • contribs)
Pectore, why have you edited the article without ending the discussion here? From what I can see, your version gives undue weight to claims made by OpIndia itself. It also removes citations for fabricated stories and reduces it stating AltNews has claimed it has produced such stories whereas there the previous version included citations from sources than AltNews. I think this would qualify as WP:DE. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Alt news , Newslaundary have the same ideological leaning, OpIndia has opposing views and ideology. Words of business rivals or ideological rivals cannot be taken as the gospel truth. Shubham2019 ( talk) 08:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Look at this article on the fake news being spread by a page owned by Alt-news co-founder [3] , following this fact check Facebook marked the news as fake on Facebook and the co-founder apologised on Twitter. But this apology came in almost a month after the fake news was circulated widely. Shubham2019 ( talk) 08:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Also here [4] Wall Street Journal has spread fake news by fabricating false quote from Ankit Sharma's brother. Does this make WSJ a fake news website? You can write about the misreporting done by OpIndia in the reception subsection. But introducing a news media portal (which has actual reporters on the ground) as a fake news website is unacceptable. Shubham2019 ( talk) 09:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Here are secondary sources backing Fact Hunt's claim [5] also another source which is from none other than Newslaundary but quotes Prasar Bharti News Service( India's national broadcaster) [6]
Shubham2019 ( talk) 14:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand AltNews is IFCN certified but kindly understand IFCN certificate doesn't mean that IFCN endorses or believes that each and every article written by them is true. IFCN has certified the website based on samples provided by the website to the assessor. Kindly read the Application and assessment of Alt News by IFCN [7] They have provided samples on which they feel most confident and which show their Non-partisanship. The IFCN assessor also has made the assesment based on these samples. However this website which checks media bias clearly states that AltNews has a left bias [8] OpIndia's right bias is stated by themselves. Therefore conflicting ideologies fact check each other and put forward opposing views. Had there been one article on OpIndia in the sample provided by AltNews there pieces could not have been doubted. But since these is not. It can be concluded that AltNews's word can't be taken as gospel. Also, every websites/editor/mediahouse makes genuine mistakes and they correct them too. Making mistakes is no reason for discrediting their hard work as fake news. IFCN rejected OpIndia's application because of the clearly stated right bias. Not because they think OpIndia spreads fake news. I suggest we put the fake news citations in the reception subsection. Shubham2019 ( talk) 15:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
If major corporations are the criterion then FactHunt is relied on by Facebook which is the largest digital social media platform in the world. [9] Shubham2019 ( talk) 07:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is another Reliable source WP:RS which proves authenticity of Facthunt because the one of the most reputed media house quotes its Fact Check. [10] Shubham2019 ( talk) 10:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I see an inherent bias in IFCN India regarding this case. IFCN in USA has certified both Right leaning and Left Leaning Websites. Shubham2019 ( talk) 19:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
However, the Indian management seems to have a left bias. The founders are allowed to have an ideological bias as in case of Pratik Sinha and Alt News but not in case of FactHunt and Neel Kamal? That's very convenient.
As long as the founders are not members of the party and not actively involved in campaigning for some political party they should be certified. Shubham2019 ( talk) 19:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The screenshot says it is recommended that the application may not be accepted. Kindly review. Shubham2019 ( talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
If the credibility of IFCN itself is in question then we are swimming in unknown waters here and need to review Wikipedia's previous positions and resolves with respect to fact checking in India. Shubham2019 ( talk) 20:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that these fact checking sites become known when famous people or media houses endorse them as in case of NDTV and Ravish Kumar with AltNews [11] Shubham2019 ( talk) 20:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
So logically when the leading media house in India i.e. India Today quotes FactHunt it means they believe its reliability and fairness. Therefore, there is a strong case that FactHunt is indeed a reliable source. WP:RS Shubham2019 ( talk) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, Check Your Fact is not "right-leaning" despite its affiliation with
The Daily Caller. Check Your Fact stated in
its 2020 IFCN assessment that it "pursues a non-partisan mission of fact-checking public figures on both sides of the political spectrum"
and that "Scanning sources across the political spectrum allows us to keep our claim selection neutral"
. —
Newslinger
talk
08:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
References
So far, no editors have been able to produce a reliable source that shows positive coverage of OpIndia. The content in this article is similiar to the content of articles on other unreliable sources, such as Breitbart News ( RSP entry), InfoWars ( RSP entry), and WorldNetDaily ( RSP entry). If there is no reliable source available that contradicts the coverage in this article, the neutrality template should be removed from this article. — Newslinger talk 08:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The lead section of this article states:
"However, in May 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be accredited as a fact-checker on grounds of political partisanship and poor fact-checking methodologies.[3]" If this is indeed the rejection, then the grounds for it are not faulty fact checking but other concerns.
The citation link 3 should provide details of the IFCN rejection. Instead it brings up a host of links to articles published by the very sources that OpIndia often finds faults with. Such other links should be brought up elsewhere in the article, not here.
The one link that the page provides is to an IFCN assessment by Kanchan Kaur in Feb 2019 (not May 2019)
The section 2 on non-partisan reporting states "In all the ten examples they’ve provided, the conclusions arrived at indicate focus on one political party or ideology." A focus on one party or ideology is not inaccurate. It's just a focus. Readers seeking news on right leaning subjects will appreciate it.
It also states "...its Editorial Guidelines ...clearly indicates its political stand. I quote: “We won’t entertain the usual left-liberal narrative.”" Again this may be a valid ground for IFCN's rejection but it does not make the fact checks incorrect. It may pick up articles with a right leaning focus to check or publish.
Other transgressions reported by IFCN in this rejection also seem to be of a less serious nature and some are difficult to comprehend. Like section 6b seems to say "one has a note at the end that they had published a satirical article, but it does not indicate that the article under contention is the one under which the note is published."
The correction is published under the article and states that the earlier draft was incorrect. Why must it state the obvious that it is an earlier draft of the article 'above'?
It does bring into question a point raised by Shubham that the IFCN's India office may have a left bias. That thread is awaiting conclusion and is an important one to conclude.
If the IFCN rejection is for reasons other than faulty fact checking then this entire line needs to be placed in a section other than the lead or omitted.
OpIndia is a fairly established player in the digital news space as can be seen in the discussions above and by the number of engagements it draws on its Twitter posts. This should be the focus while introducing it.
Thanks
182.56.241.148 ( talk) 18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Ruchir
Tayi,
The effect you have given is just the opposite of what I was asking.
I repeat, OpIndia is a fairly established player in the digital news space as can be seen in the discussions above and by the number of engagements it draws on its Twitter posts. This should be the focus while introducing it.
You agree stating, "I'd agree with you that IFCN has not stated any fault in the fact checking methodologies" and still retain the line "the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be accredited as a fact-checker on grounds of political partisanship and poor fact-checking methodologies" in the lead.
That's contradictory.
Most OpIndia readers are interested in knowing if the facts they present are correct. They may be biased to the right wing, but are the right wing facts correct? Readers may not be interested to know if there was full disclosure of financing which will change from time to time, or if they solicit user fact checks or have a standard methodology for reporting apologies.
Hence if IFCN does not fault OpIndia specifically for erroneous fact checking but on other ancillary grounds the entire line on IFCNs rejection is giving undue weightage to IFNC in the introduction of OpIndia.
The other line you have added "The site has been documented to have propagated fake news on multiple occasions.[4]" would also need to be moved out as these are precisely the sources AltNews, NewsLaundry that OpIndia has regularly found faults with.
Thanks
Ruchir
PS this process of altering Wikipedia where only certain editors can make changes is rather onerous, specially were observation don't elicit a specific response but are interpreted suit ones own ends and present a completely different effect from the one sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.241.148 ( talk) 02:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@ 182.56.241.148: Ruchir wikipedia is not a closed enterprise. You can join wikipedia and make constructive edits over time to be able to edit articles. I can also edit the article right now but i am waiting for consensus in good faith. Although many contributors have not been discussing lately. I am sure consensus can be reached based on the large number of points I along with other editors have raised in the discussions above. Shubham2019 ( talk) 09:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shubham,
A process exists, I understand, to allow people to edit over time. I can't edit this article presently.
I'm still raking up the same issue you had raised on Feb 13, 2020 'This description is highly biased'. Your other concerns about IFCN India seem to be unanswered too.
The outcome of the Wikipedia edit process leaves much to be desired if after several days of protracted discussion amongst those who can edit it, we still have about the same write up that we had a month ago which is unduly harsh to a respectable and popular player in the digital media space.
I cant even seem to refer the fact check articles webpage of OpIndia in the talk section where it makes counters allegations against other players in the digital media space.
Clearly something needs to change.
Thanks for the reply.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AbidingLight ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tayi,
The OpIndia lead states 'The site has been documented to have propagated fake news on multiple occasions'.
You say the lead is a summary of the article. Its content section states, 'OpIndia has accused multiple prominent media outlets — The Wall Street Journal, India Today, Scroll.in, The Wire and others of spreading fake news and leftist propaganda.[7]'.
OpIndia’s contention must be included in the lead if it is to be a correct summary of the article.
The case was made out earlier that claims made by IFCN registered AltNews should be given greater precedence over OpIndia. However, the IFCN rejection is not because OpIndia’s fact checking is flawed, but other reasons of a right wing bias, undeclared additional financing details and lack of certain fact checking hygiene factors that may potentially lead to incorrect fact checking in future. Have discussed these at the end of this comment.
If IFCN does not cite inaccuracies in OpIndia’s fact checks, then OpIndia’s fact checks against its contemporaries and links to its repository of such checks should be included in the page and stated ahead of what its competition says.
It could also be brought out that the counter claims are by competitors.
Out of curiosity would you be able to show me a left wing digital media outlet introduced this way on Wikipedia?
The co-founder for NewsLaundry for example has a write up on Wikipedia which describes NewLaundry quite differently. "...Newslaundry,[1] a media critique, news and current affairs website. The news organisation does not carry advertisements and runs on a subscription-based model. Newslaundry's Manisha Pande, along with Sandeep Pai won the 2015 Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for investigative reporting. Abhinandan is currently the full-time CEO of Newslaundry. "
Why does it not state that OpIndia accuses it of peddling fake news? And in the second line itself?
Has OpIndia been unjustly singled out for this harsh treatment?
In the section below I summarize what the IFCN rejection says:
1) The first concern is that OpIndia is focused on trying to disprove information put out by a certain political party or by organizations that are seemingly inclined toward that political party. Its method in reaching or presenting its conclusions presents evidence of potential bias. -
No instance of inaccurate reporting is cited but it alludes to a potential right wing bias which may impact future fact checks?
2) More often than not, the evidence that is used is usually from speeches made by political parties or the government, which are merely countering the claims. Data is rarely used, and then only to counter data claims made by political or other organizations.
IFCN does not provide any example of inaccurate reporting. Political speeches are credible sources of information especially if an article is about what a politician said
3) Additionally, most claims are countered by making disparaging comments
Once again that does not make the fact check inaccurate
4) The applicant lists its owner but offers no further details on funding.
Financing details change from time to time. Notice IFCNs own comment states ‘It would help for the applicant to provide more information on funding’. The absence does not mean OpIndia’s fact check is inaccurate. No example of inaccuracy is provided.
5) The applicant does not have a clear corrections policy.
This appears to be a hygiene factor on which there could be some improvement, though in my previous comment I had pointed out that the IFCN was being fastidious. It has no bearing on the accuracy of fact check
At best one can summarize the IFCN assessment to 'The IFCN rejection did not cite any instance of incorrect fact checking in the material OpIndia provided it. IFCN rejected the application based on concerns of potential inaccuracies in future because of OpIndia's political leaning, unwillingness to declare additional funding details and a need for other fact check hygiene factors."
These details should to be modified in the body of the write up. And since the IFCN did not find any flaw with the OpIndia fact check per se, the entire rejection seems a little weak and less consequential and could be eliminated from the lead section to make it more charitable like NewLaundry's.
Thanks again
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AbidingLight ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Since OpIndia is a questionable source, content from OpIndia is excluded from articles per Wikipedia's verifiability policy and undue weight policy. We are able to use a limited amount of information from OpIndia for uncontroversial self-descriptions under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy. OpIndia's claims regarding any third party, such as Newslaundry, do not fall under WP:ABOUTSELF and are excluded. OpIndia's number of Twitter ( RSP entry) followers is totally irrelevant; Breitbart News ( RSP entry) has over four times the number of Twitter followers as OpIndia, and it is also considered generally unreliable.
The Poynter Institute and the International Fact-Checking Network are nonpartisan organizations that set standards for high-quality journalism. OpIndia failed to meet these standards, but 11 other Indian fact checkers (including Alt News and Boom) did meet them, and that is why they are considered reliable while OpIndia is not. It does not make sense to claim that the IFCN is biased because it rejected OpIndia, as that argument presupposes that OpIndia is a reliable source, when there is ample evidence from multiple reliable sources that OpIndia is not. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Whether "the governor of New York writes an article in a newspaper"
has no effect on the
reliability of the newspaper. You may want to review the
reliable sources guideline. OpIndia's "malicious campaign" to
dox a Wikipedia editor backfired on themselves via the
Streisand effect, and they have only themselves to blame. —
Newslinger
talk
09:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
An RfC last year at WP:RSN [3] concluded that "There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail." That RfC concluded that "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." Doug Weller talk 15:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
In the US, now, outlets with declared ideological leanings are accepted as fact-checkers (Daily Caller, for example) and it is a high time people in India drop this pretense of ‘neutrality’.
Check Your Fact pursues a non-partisan mission of fact-checking public figures on both sides of the political spectrum. To ensure this, our writers have built out social media feeds on Tweetdeck (Twitter) and CrowdTangle (Facebook) that track the statements made by both conservatives and liberals.
Scanning sources across the political spectrum allows us to keep our claim selection neutral.
"right-leaning", and states that its
"disdain towards the ‘left-liberal narrative’"forms their
"ontological positions on the basis of which [they] operate". — Newslinger talk 06:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, the neutrality template needs to stay on. The chief minister of the most populated scale in India has written for OpIndia. Hence credibility is accepted. Also the fake news byline in the introduction needs to go as soon as possible or it needs to come in all left wing media portals specially the usual fake news peddlers like the wire, Newslaundry, telegraph, quint, scroll.
Shubham2019 ( talk) 09:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
"The chief minister of the most populated scale in India has written for OpIndia"does not make OpIndia reliable. Please review the reliable sources guideline. You've provided no evidence that any of the media outlets you've listed are "fake news peddlers". If you find reliable sources that contain positive coverage of OpIndia, please share them. — Newslinger talk 09:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Personal attacks -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I randomly arrived here after an automated filter alerted me that Opindia is a recently banned source. This triggered my curiosity. I quickly read through the article and googled for few minutes. The article seems like a hit job on Opindia for the following reasons: Specific immediately actionable concern1. Single source UNDUE Weight bias: Fifty percent of the article is based on single source (Prashant Bhat and Kalyani Chadha) which is a primary source (reporting own research in a journal, this wikipedia article on Opindia does not cite the secondary sources which have requoted the primary source Prashant Bhat and Kalyani Chadha). Where is due balance? Where is the "use secondary sources and avoid primary sources" rule? In the "content" section, please condense those five points to one or two sentences, similar to the last two paragraphs of the "content" section. Actually, remove this source all together, because it is a primary source. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Concerns of largest context2. Be Transparent everywhere on wikipedia re: why Opindia is being targetted? Why has Opindia suddenly become the target here on their article as well as recently has been banned as a source? It made me ask myself, what triggered two simultaneous recent hits against one entity/Opindia? To keep the inter-linked issues transparent, can the watcher/custodian editors and those instrumental in banning the Opindia as source please answer this? Post links to those discussions and decisions here. 3. Is Opindia targeted for writing expose on corrupt practices of power mongering wikipedia admins/editors? Quick google search showed that Opindia recently wrote some articles, some of which expose the alleged corrupt practices by editors, hegemonistic cartelization and power mongering in the "packing order among the gang of wolves" who breed camp followers and quickly kill/block threats/challengers. Eg. read Opindia article "Journalist who exposed cartel of Wikipedia editors permanently banned from the platform for ‘offline harassment’", there are more such articles by Opindia on wikipedia editors allegedly doing wrong, just google "wikipedia and Opindia". 4. WP:COI: Are the accused being judge, jury and executioner to liberate themselves and to kill Opindia? Has this hit job done only after Opindia started to expose the alleged "Wikipedia Hegemonists" (if such a thing exists)? Who are they? Were they investigated (post the links to those threads)? Was the investigation done by the people who did not know the accused before? Was it done by the mates who all have incentives in preserving the "scratch each other's back" power structure? Are any of the accused, their friends, supporters, proteges/camp followers, etc involved in the decision making regarding banning Opindia as source and suddenly loading its article up with hit job like content? Anyone with COI must be isolated from Opindia related decisions and edits, their previous work must be reverted. 5. Will I become your target for making this post?" Does this alleged "Gang of Wikipedia Bullies" go after the editors who asks such questions (in this case its me raising the questions)? Do they have off line chat rooms and means to conspire? Will I too now become an item on their hit list being silently watched as the article in item 3 says? 6. Corrupt hegemonist admins/editors will get wikipedia killed. I am asking the obvious questions, not yet accusing anyone, But there are too many read flags. There is a risk that the large number of editors will lose interest in wikipedia due to such hegemony structure, they might lobby with their governments to force google to just ban wikipedia from their search algorithm, there are many competitors such as Everipedia. Lot easier to lobby the govt to ban indirectly/directly ban/replace/ wikipedia, than to reform the hegemony at wikipedia. In one stroke wikipedia will die due to the small number of corrupt admins. Sadly with that the hard work of millions of editors will be pushed into oblivion. 7. Please answer, but don't manipulate as I do not have the skills to match master manipulator WP:GAMER editors/admins"
As an IP who does not have wikipedia account, I know well that IP are often treated as "dumb trampleable softest targets". I have edited enough as IP to sense that there definitely is power structure which is not in tune with wikipedia rules, there are
WP:GAMING (master manipulator admin/editors). Those who are kind enough to answer to this post, if you counter any of the corrective measures suggested by me, then please cite the 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Summary of corrective actions needed8. Take these corrective actions, last one is easiest, immediately start with that. PS: NO COI statement. I am not related to Admins/editors, wikipedia foundation, Opindia, any party or religious organisation, media house or journalism, religious/party NGO, or their staff. I have always been an IP, with no friends or enemies on wikipedia. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OpIndia is an Indian right-wing[13] news portal founded in December 2014 by Rahul Raj and Kumar Kamal.[20] In 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application for accreditation as a fact checker.The news portal is widely known for raising the voice for hindus and exposing fake news against hindus. Xcel 1709 ( talk) 07:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The reports from opindia have been quoted in court proceedings (Ref: https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1197440372504293376) Kapish16 ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Considering that OpIndia almost exclusively posts communalist stuff or attacks non-right-wingers, I'd like to ask if calling it right-wing is more accurate. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Talk 10:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Come to think about it, why does the article not explicitly say that OI is a fake news website in the first sentence? After all, if OI deliberately lies repeatedly, then they are a fake news website under Wikipedia’s definition at Fake news website. They lie, then post on Twitter and Facebook, and they repeat it. All criteria are satisfied. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Talk 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely critical of the site in question, including the description. Section:Content is dominated by unnecessarily detailed critical UoM report and does not describe its content or style anywhere other than a single sentence towards the end. I see dozens of violations of WP:NPOV. I'm starting an NPOV dispute. LΞVIXIUS 💬 14:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Though the fact checks cover a variety of subjects, they do concentrate on a certain political organization or organizations with a certain ideology. Of the ten fact-checks given as examples, nearly all are focused on trying to disprove information put out by a certain political party or by organizations that are seemingly inclined toward that political party. Or, have writing that indicates that an opposition party is either behind it or is taking advantage of it. Its method in reaching or presenting its conclusions presents evidence of potential bias.
The OpIndia story claims that the boys who called away Rohit were all Muslim. This is false. The FIR names five Muslim boys and one Hindu. In fact, it was the Hindu boy who called away Rohit. OpIndia, of course, omitted this nugget of information.
In fact, even in the audio clip OpIndia gave us, Rajesh can be heard telling them that the boys who called away Rohit that day were not all Muslim.
Why then did OpIndia claim that the boys were all Muslim?
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
175.45.149.63 ( talk) 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It is the most trusted media in India as of 2020
OpIndia openly claims being a rightist ideology portal. This doesn't mean they publish fake news. Their articles show the truth that very few media houses are brave enough to show. It works constantly towards calling out left wing extremism in its articles. The fact checkers quoted in this article like Alt News are the darling of Indian extreme left media houses. They have notoriously fact checked sarcasm, satire, idiom, proverbs and phrases of right wing news portals and personalities. However the almost never fact check false claims and news peddled by highly influential left wing portals and websites. The person who has written this article is prejudiced and this article needs serious improvement. Shubham2019 ( talk) 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
3rd Source is a bbc document and is itself quoting from other sources like Altnews and Boom articles which are not a reliable source as pointed out earlier. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
4th source doesn't have any connection to OpIndia. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2nd Source is a Boom article which is a dead link and doesn't exist. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
1st source/reference is a fact check of a mistake, that mistake was corrected in the subsequent edit and pointed it out in the article as well. Now the article is completely error free. Mistakes are but human. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
5th source is an opinion article from Pakistan owned news website without any sources. It lauds some websites and discredits the others. Opinions are not references. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
8th reference/source has done a fact checking of satire. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
7th reference is a critical article from newslaundary. It doesn't show that OpIndia spreads fake news. Any student willing to learn about Biogas generation can learn it from YouTube or Wikipedia itself. People don't go to OpIndia to learn about the details of renewable energy. Shubham2019 ( talk) 06:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is a based projection of newslinger that operates for left it cells Aviks3 ( talk) 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
First of all this article is totally fake and the Leftist propaganda clearly shows there views on there fake secularism. Secound thing Wikipedia never judge on anything they just provide information but in this article they making allegation against highly reliable online platform Opindia. You can bark you can cry you can laugh but i believe in Karma. Om shanti. Jai Sri Ram Rahul.of.m3 ( talk) 11:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There are many media houses who are biased for left ideology like Alt news, Scroll.in, The Quint, The Print, News Laundry, they openly spread fake news and lie about Right Wing and a particular community, and OpIndia caught them many time, OpIndia has published many articles about fake news and lie spread or published by these media house. Those who writing these article on Wikipedia on OpIindia either they are unware from these facts or they are also biased against OpIndia. @Rahul4931 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul4931 ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The description of this page oozes a clear left wing bias. Any source that is not from an already left leaning/overtly left wing publisher is not cited by the editor of this page. In the many videos posted on its Youtube channel as well as through articles on its own website, OpIndia has refuted the one sided claims made on this page. To make matters worse, Wikipedia has made this page semi protected which does not help refute any allegations made by OpIndia against the editors of this page. If Wikipedia is indeed a non-partisan website, it must stop the blatant disregard of the contrary opinions- By making the page semi protected, Wiki has scored a self goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electranumera ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
[4] The UK's Stop Funding Hate has played a role with "about two dozen companies have withdrawn advertisements from OpIndia, citing “insidious content” and “hateful views” due to campaign they've run, must update that article. Anyway, there's a lot in this that can be used. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opindia is NOT Right Wing because your refernces show nothing give refernce or remove the word Anna4525 ( talk) 05:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Read through only if you are not offended.
OpIndia targets Indian Christians for absolutely false reasons. OpIndia is living in a world of delusion. OpIndia thinks that "Christians exist in India for converting people only. Indian Christians have only 1 objective - convert all other people to their faith. Christians in India are converting many people forcefully."
I am surprised the present Indian government is still allowing such a contemptuous "news" platform namely OpIndia to flourish.
If Christians in India were so keen on converting people of other faiths, then today why is the Christian population just 2% of the population of India?
The truth is that Christians are among the most peaceful and well-educated people in India. Christians have the highest literacy rate in India.
106.217.81.168 (
talk)
03:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I am putting together a section on OpIndia's attacks on Wikipedia. This needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources -- our internal discussions are not reliable sources -- so please list any that you find here. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Karthikndr: The fact that OpIndia has published "anti-Muslim commentary" is well-substantiated. First, Newslaundry has analyzed OpIndia's anti-Muslim discourse in depth:
Newslaundry analyses of OpIndia's anti-Muslim commentary
|
---|
|
Second, OpIndia published seven articles falsely claiming that a child was sacrificed in a mosque by a group of "all Muslims", with the OpIndia English article stating, "A new mosque had been built in the village and it is being alleged that there was a belief that if a Hindu was 'sacrificed', the mosque would become powerful and its influence would increase." These claims were debunked by the following cited sources, which noted that OpIndia added anti-Muslim claims (e.g. "all Muslims", "mosque would become powerful") that were not corroborated by anything at all:
Sources covering OpIndia's human sacrifice articles
|
---|
|
OpIndia's human sacrifice articles constituted both fake news and anti-Muslim commentary, and I'm not sure how it's possible to argue that the human sacrifice claims were not anti-Muslim.
Finally, OpIndia was boycotted by advertisers after it published an article with a headline including the argument "non-Muslims have the right to advertise that they don’t hire Muslims". The boycott was initiated by Stop Funding Hate, whose director stated, "We've seen a lot of hateful media headlines in the past few years, but we’ve rarely seen such overt advocacy of discrimination on religious grounds." Over 20 advertisers pulled their ads from OpIndia in response to OpIndia's article because the article advocated taking action against Muslims. The incident was covered in the following cited sources:
Sources covering advertisers' boycott of OpIndia
|
---|
Altogether, three significant parts of the article (which total about one-quarter of the article body) describe OpIndia's anti-Muslim commentary. The lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article. The words "anti-Muslim commentary" succinctly encapsulate these elements of the article, and are well-suited for the lead section. — Newslinger talk 07:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove:
"The website has published fake news and anti-Muslim commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque." As the website is 100% authentic and false and fake news smasher with proper evidences. It is not at all anti-muslim, the fact that majority of crime in India is indeed conducted by that particluar community cannot be ignored. All the news provided by Op-India are removing the sham and only showing true picture unbiasedly.
(Redacted)
Suyesha ( talk) 15:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence about OpIndia regularly writing badly about Wikipedia is grammatically incorrect. "Declared an unreliable source from Wikipedia" is the phrase I am writing about as "from Wikipedia" makes no sense in this context. It should be written as "Declared by Wikipedia to be an unreliable source" or something like that. 45.251.33.88 ( talk) 06:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
[ Trolling deleted ]
Hi TheBirdsShedTears, although I appreciate that you cited reliable sources for the plagiarism incident, I don't think a single incident with nominal coverage is prominent enough to include into the article's lead section, particularly in the opening paragraph. Most of the other content in the lead section refers either to a recurring attribute of OpIndia (e.g. fake news, anti-Muslim content, criticism of "liberal" media) or to an especially prominent incident (i.e. the Bihar human sacrifice claims). Would you mind removing the plagiarism incident from the lead section, or at least repositioning it after the more prominent aspects of OpIndia? — Newslinger talk 05:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
On first glance there seem to be neutrality issues with the article. Most of the sources that are used here are of different political alignment and should be avoided perhaps, e.g The Wire. There are jabs starting from the very first paragraph, which is previously unseen on any article whatsoever. A total revision of the article is recommended. Need comments. Jenos450 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
This news channel is not spreading any kind of fake news, they have proof for everything the that they publishing
Due to such topics and peoples on wikipedia, quality of wikipedia is decreasing.... Jayant khandebharad ( talk) 04:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TexanBhai ( talk) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) A lot of information about OpIndia on Wikipedia is coming from far Left leaning and extremist Islamist supporting entities in my opinion. OpIndia is a far right leaning organization (correct). The news about the boy being sacrificed was wrong and I recall the Hindi editor apologizing for it. Wikipedia should stick to just reporting facts and prevent it from being used by groups keep on spreading propaganda. I would like to suggest changes to what is written about OpIndia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanBhai ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hii everyone Wikipedia Claim To Be Neutral Although its laughable How Can U label them As Anti Muslim Or Something like That?????? If u are doing indeed then better Add same thing about Quint Wire Scroll Too They too are Hinduphobic As eminent From their tones of Article. Better write more Neutral Lead of this site As was created last time by Senior editor. Hope u will listen. Samboy 01681 ( talk) 16:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Please remove the Fake news from below and remove the reference for the 2020 incident. If you MUST keep the 2020 incident then you also have to include the fact that the Hindi editor Ajeet Bharti had himself issued a long apology on YouTube for that mistake and that he had relied on the veracity of some of his sources which he should not have. They do publish anti-Islamist commentary so it should be worded as such. By saying anti-muslim you are not differentiating between the two which is a mistake in my humble opinion.
The website has published fake news[21] and anti-Muslim[25] commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque.[26] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TexanBhai (
talk •
contribs)
14:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 16:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes there is no such a fake news.Why are you biased on this media agency. Niteshhacker ( talk) 10:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The Quint , scroll , print etc are purely hinduphobic but in their respective wikipedia pages its not mentioned to maintain neutrality but how come here neutrality is not maintained Even Ravish kumar and his media NDTV news have spread fake news at multiple instances. Wikieditor457 ( talk) 04:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Vengeance 01, the "pro-Hindutva"
descriptor in the
short description is supported by the sources in
Special:Permalink/1009220241 § cite note-Hindutva-39. —
Newslinger
talk
12:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Newslinger: I know it is sourced but don't you think it violates the policy of WP:NPOV to mention about a particular subject in such a negative light and that too in Short description ?? Even though many so called fact checking websites or channels too had published fake news and anti-religious sentiments in the past like NDTV, Quint and so on. Vengeance 01 ( talk) 08:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Tayi Arajakate: I can't get What you are saying, Can you please elaborate ? My point is as per
WP:NPOV Is it relevant to mention "pro-Hindutva"
in
short description ?
Vengeance 01 (
talk)
12:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Wikipedia’s aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative.
@ Tayi Arajakate: I agree with you and i am satisfied with this arguments, Anyway can i ask you and Newslinger a out of the box question here ?? How to sign out on talk pages using coloured signature ???? Vengeance 01 ( talk) 12:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Berrely, I noticed that you changed the locations of the citations in the lead section on two occasions, recently in Special:Diff/1013649855 and two months ago in Special:Diff/1002295534. These citations were positioned directly after controversial descriptors because this article has a long history of editors removing the descriptors without taking the cited sources into account. The text–source integrity guideline ( WP:INTEGRITY) allows us to position the citation bundles closer (in this case, adjacent to) the text it supports in order to ensure that readers and editors understand exactly which sources support the descriptors. Also, the WP:CITEVAR guideline recommends against changing the citation style of an article unless one is going to make significant contributions to the article content, or unless one has obtained consensus beforehand. The citation positioning is intentionally implemented to force editors to consider the citations before modifying or removing the descriptor, as a way of minimizing disruptive editing on this article. I hope this clarifies why the citations were positioned the way they were. — Newslinger talk 05:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there a paticular reason that the URL in the infobox and external links link to the about page? I would change it but it's on the blacklist, and I feel like there is likely a reason it's linked there instead of the mainpage. — Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 18:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Newslinger and Tayi Arajakate: Since you both are very active on these page, Thus I ping you both;
OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia in March 2020 (alongside Swarajya and TFIpost) after Sharma, in an OpIndia piece, published personally identifying information about a Wikipedia editor who helped write the encyclopaedia's article on the 2020 Delhi riots, which resulted in the editor leaving Wikipedia
This bit about a editor being targeted by the OpIndia
can indeed be true. But the cited source doesn't mention about these at all. Please bring a reliable source which clearly mentions this for verification of readers. Best
Holy Contributor 92 (
talk)
03:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Tayi Arajakate: Yes, I agree the article is behind a paywall. I want to read this full article without subscription and don't bombard with talk page warnings. I wasn't disruptive here just asked quotes for this bit and that's why moved to talk page immediately.
OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia in March 2020 (alongside Swarajya and TFIpost) after Sharma, in an OpIndia piece, published personally identifying information about a Wikipedia editor who helped write the encyclopaedia's article on the 2020 Delhi riots, which resulted in the editor leaving Wikipedia
@ Newslinger:, Already added relevant quotes. I want a bit more for my verification. Thanks Holy Contributor 92 ( talk) 04:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@
Newslinger: None. But did OpIndia
really leaked his personal detail ???? As you said in a quote. I read one of their article in which they named him and exposed him but could't found anything realted to his personal life. Anyway, Thanks for the quotes.
Holy Contributor 92 (
talk)
05:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pradsona ( talk) 15:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Opindia is largely followed News Portal of India.
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2409:4064:2D0C:DC1B:ED75:9D2F:59DA:5BF6 ( talk) 21:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
9
Should OpIndia be italicised as a news outlet? — Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 15:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The content regarding this news portal is misinformation particularly word right wing and anti muslim I request you to make changes to your article True seeker Man ( talk) 14:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you True seeker Man ( talk) 14:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is wrongly propagated , please allow to remit this 2402:E280:2178:105:E49B:EA81:9BA4:D585 ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
OpIndia is literally InfoWars of India, you can check all the reliable sources in the lead stating its a fake news website, there is NO reliable source says opindia as a legitimate news website, sources here [9] and if you read the article, there is tons more.
It has been rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Fact checkers certified by the IFCN have identified 25 fake news stories published by OpIndia between January 2018 and June 2020. [10] [11]
Newslaundry January 2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Newslaundry June 2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wire sacrifice
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda619 ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
One sided projection in introduction itself. Controversies and Allegations must be given in seperate Tab and with heading like how other media pages are given. Sreenivasan KG1 ( talk) 21:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Xenophobic traits against Hindus go unreported,while alt news has fir’s;and dozens of instances where it had to take down fake news of Hindus attacking Muslims,it exists only on fake news and create communal hatred Casafranca ( talk) 18:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
In 2020, the West Bengal Police filed first information reports (FIRs) against Sharma, Roushan and Ajeet Bharti (then editor of OpIndia Hindi) in response to content published on OpIndia.
What was the content? Please be comprehensive. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opindia is Spreading awareness regarding how sold media is changing the news for the sake of money. someone has told that it is anti-muslim channel, No but it is stating truth with proof so there is no anti-community news and it is writing the news which is true and those culprits are involved in. Arvind.visavadiya ( talk) 05:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change " fake news[26] and anti-Muslim[30] commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque" to "the news of local small cities and villages in India which are only covered by regional channels and print media. Though greatly targeted for putting light on such incidents, against some communities, which goes against the narrative of the radical misinformation. OpIndia's biggest strength is the small news which big media houses miss out or intentionally ignore. Case in point, the Bihar sacrifice of a Hindu minor story was faced with a huge backlash, saying it was a fake claim, but no one cared to give the interview of police on this matter except for local newspapers( https://www.bhaskar.com/news/accused-arrested-in-case-of-body-recovery-073245-7077159.html) and OpIndia. " SenSaini ( talk) 10:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the website's URL must be added to the Information Box Wpakxl ( talk) 14:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed! The URL section should be added into the infobox. There’s no logical reason for not adding it there IndianHistoryEnthusiast ( talk) 05:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The Caravan has published an in-depth feature on our subject. Will quote the most interesting bits. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term fake news should be edited Sharannukala27 ( talk) 01:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Kumar's credentials are felicitous and germane for his discourse on the subject of media. Vide [5], which sets forth his academic antecedents in outline. And he observes on the right-wing alt portals in context of their perverse crusade against mainstream journalism, which, he avers, takes the form of fake-news and trolling. It is in lockstep with our own article's presentation on the foregoing aspect at OpIndia#Content #2. Don't think the citation should be removed. MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 18:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is doing biased about Opindia this is the verified newsletter it is talking about social issues so please don't say it that it is fake 2401:4900:802A:1C39:EC87:CFF:FEB2:AA44 ( talk) 16:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It's unfortunate to see how deeply bias has crept into Wikipedia. Use of adjectives for right-bias portals like OpIndia (which is obviously biased) is right wing, fake, controversial etc vs a portal like Wire (which is known globally for not just publishing biased fake news but actually doctoring and concocting 'stories' and I don't just mean Tek Fog or Meta controversies) has no mention of being left leaning, controversial or fake instead it is an award winning portal which has been (unfairly?) Targetted with defamation suits. Ankittyagi wiki ( talk) 18:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The text says fake news we site, while it isnt! Wikipedia should be free of propaganda 142.198.137.168 ( talk) 14:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Please add the URL of this site 2402:E280:230A:36:DC85:B20B:B3E5:A273 ( talk) 02:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
It would be more appropriate to say that "OpIndia is an Indian right-wing fake news website."
The inclusion of the word "fake" would be more in line with how we describe other such websites like Natural News, National Report, Palmer Report, Real Raw News etc. Alexandria Bucephalous ( talk) 04:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Please remove the 'frequently publishes misinformation' which is nothing but an anti-government hate statement" 49.36.107.198 ( talk) 04:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template. The claim is backed up by reliable sources. See
Talk:OpIndia#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2023 for a previous discussion on the subject. Feel free to start a discussion by pressing "New section" at the top of this talk page; I would recommend reading through the
archive before you do so.
Staraction (
talk |
contribs)
04:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.204.23.45 ( talk) 10:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
OP India doesn't peddle fake news. Op India counters anti Hindu and anti nation narratives created by leftist portals like NewsClick, The Wire and so called secular, liberal gangs.
Opindia doesn't publish any fake news. It provides credible information which goes against interest of propaganda media.
Noone should believe the blatant wrong information mentioned in this article.
Can you provide any instances where Opindia published fake news ? ManindraLiberal ( talk) 22:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Not seeing any more RS; will move to SPS territory, which will be obviously attributed. ∯WBG converse 12:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Winged Blades of Godric: Why don't you add portal's claim form this article?-- Harshil want to talk? 11:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Winged Blades of Godric: here’re few suggestions for the article:
I’m looking for your response regarding these changes. If you don’t get then let me try to do them once, you can check, I’ll revert and then we can have consensus about it. — Harshil want to talk? 17:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree with V93. ∯WBG converse 10:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I have to say looking at the sourcing it only seems to be notable for being a bit crap. I am leaning to maybe this is not really notable at all. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't see all of this before
adding quotes of OpIndia's statements that were reported in
The Economic Times. Personally, I think OpIndia's responses are
due because they were published in a reliable source, and they show OpIndia describing its political leanings in its own words. If this is excessive, you could trim it down to one quote instead of two. (The "
ontological positions"
quote is probably the more essential of the two.) —
Newslinger
talk
19:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
"The IFCN construes our disdain towards the ' left-liberal narrative' as evidence of bias. It appears they do not realise that these are our ontological positions on the basis of which we operate."– This quote establishes that OpIndia believes in a "left-liberal narrative" and operates on the basis of that premise.
"This whole business of ' neutrality' or being unbiased is a sham. These so-called fact-checking networks should actually be allowing what they call 'biased' outlets, so the sum total is neutral."– This quote shows OpIndia's editor admitting to bias (in stark contrast to OpIndia's [https://www.opindia.com/about/fact-check/ "Non-partisanship policy"]).
The IFCN's rejection of OpIndia disqualified the website for fact-checking contracts with web properties owned by Facebook and Google. [1]
References
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Earlier edits are incorrect - optindia is a very fair news channel ; NO FALSE NEWS EDITS ARE NOT TRUE - please investigate AzaadBharat1203 ( talk) 18:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Starting a new section since the section above have become unwieldy and veered off the point. The original version of the article as has been re-instated now does seem to have a degree of WP:NPOV violation as well. The paragraph that I would bring to attention is this one.
Paragraph
|
---|
A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines selectively targeting the leftists, liberals and Muslims. [1] Islamophobia was noted to be a dominant theme, achieved either by selective manipulation or outright faking. [1] The political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) and mainstream media was a favorite target of their vitriol; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. [1] |
Even though it does state it is from a report from a specific media (all three citations are from the same article, in fact), the wording of the paragraph is editorialised with the usage of words such as "vitriol" and the sentence structure may make it seem like following lines are not referring to the same report. One also ought to mention that OpIndia does openly subscribe to being right wing, are opposed to "left liberals" and provide their stated justifications of the stance. The article does have an certain negative tone as of now. Other than that, I do not see any other bias. The citations of it having published fabricated stories are from varied and reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Paragraph
|
---|
AltNews has documented the site to be a significant purveyor of fake news, in India. [2] In May 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), an affiliate of the Poynter Institute, rejected OpIndia's application to be accredited as a fact-checker; [3] among a variety of reasons, it noted political partisanism, poor fact-checking methodologies and general polemic commentary accompanying their news-pieces as significant contributors towards the rejection. [4] The rejection disqualified OpIndia for fact-checking contracts with web properties owned by Facebook and Google. [5] The wesbite has a topic titled Media Lies List through which it has accused various media organisations such as The Wall Street Journal, India Today and Scroll.in among others of spreading fake news and propaganda. [6] The portal claims to have a policy of no-partisanship, [7] however the editor-in-chief Nupur J Sharma has clarified that they do not claim to be ideologically neutral. [8] A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeted at leftists, liberals and Muslims. The cultivation of prejudice against Muslims was classified as a dominant theme in the report, achieved either by selective manipulation or outright fabrication. The political opposition (esp. Indian National Congress) and mainstream media was noted be a prioritised target of polemic commentary and fabrication; posts published by OpIndia Hindi from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the Bharatiya Janata Party. [1] OpIndia has organised an ideological seminar in collaboration with another fake-news website and featuring prominent figures from the Hindu nationalist intelligentsia. The seminar was noted to be vitriolic in conduct, with accusations on the mainstream media being funded by Naxals and Jihadis. It endorsed the propagation of communally charged conspiracy theories about the Kathua rape case, equate the Shaheen Bagh protests to the formation of a mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse. [9] |
Why do people create sock accounts? This is editing in bad faith. I wonder if they get paid for the same.
As regards to consensus is concerned, me and Shubham Johri agree that discrediting and declaring OpIndia as fake news should not be a dominant theme of this article.
Misreporting needs to be mentioned though, it can be mentioned in subsection called Criticism. Shubham2019 ( talk) 08:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Some links point to search results of the word 'OpIndia' on other websites, not a single article. These results are bound to change with time, may not always be critical of OpIndia and do not substantiate the charge of spreading fake news. A quick search of the keywords 'Newslaundry' and 'AltNews' on the OpIndia website yields similar claims of them spreading fake news, and it is evident that these proclaimed fact-checkers compete with each other. Shubham Johri ( talk) 02:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Yunshui: Respected user, I had no intention of being deeply mendacious. The comments were made in continuation with Liz's welcome message. There was no sign below so i attributed them to Liz. Another user Mr. Doug Weller has edited that page to reflect the same. I misunderstood an unsigned comment. I have every intention of upholding the principles and best practices in Wikipedia. Shubham2019 ( talk) 14:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I am sure i missed that comment earlier or i would have replied to it. Just to set the record straight Liz did not mention anything about this article on my talk page. Kindly do not consider that part in this discussion. 03:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham2019 ( talk • contribs)
"IFCN certified fact-checkers AltNews and Boom (among others) document the site to be a significant purveyor of fake news, in India.[11]"
The citation is a list of search results of the keyword 'OpIndia' on the AltNews website, not a single article. This list is bound to change and the search results may not always be critical of OpIndia. There is no clarity about who is included in "among others" and no link for Boom. AltNews does not make any allegations like "significant purveyor of fake news in India", which is an arbitrary opinion, and simply calls OpIndia as a right-leaning website.
A quick perusal of the search results reveals that AltNews and OpIndia regularly make allegations and counter-allegations. AltNews should not be used for references in this article. Wikipedia is not a place to settle grudges.
Newslaundry, another rival media house, is not even IFCN certified. It is not a reliable source.
The first para under Reception may be retained, but the rest should be deleted. Shubham Johri ( talk) 02:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I've started a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Newslaundry at WP:RSN § Newslaundry on OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Newslaundry is reliable because it won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards in 2015 and the Red Ink Awards in 2018 and in 2019. Newslaundry is not a fact checker and it has never applied for IFCN certification (as the IFCN only certifies fact checkers). OpIndia has never won any awards. As of now, no editor has been able to locate any positive coverage of OpIndia in reliable sources. OpIndia's claims do carry any weight due to OpIndia's unreliablity. It is improper to create a false balance between OpIndia's claims and the claims of Alt News, Boom, and Newslaundry, because the IFCN-rejected OpIndia is unreliable, while the IFCN-certified fact checkers and RNG Award-winning publication are reliable. — Newslinger talk 03:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
First line says OpIndia is a 'fake news portal'. The citations provided are from TheWire, Newslaundry, Dawn and Altnews.in, all of which are rival media houses ideologically opposed to OpIndia. They regularly slander each other in the name of 'fact-checking'. They are not reliable sources.
The BBC link only mentions websites that have published fake news at least once.
None of the articles linked in citation [1] call it a 'fake-news portal'.
The first line should be changed to "OpIndia.com is a right-wing news and current affairs website which focuses on politics and media in India", which is how OpIndia describes itself on YouTube, Facebook and its own website, "fake-news portal" should be removed. Shubham Johri ( talk) 00:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)— Shubham Johri ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi WBG and Shubham2019,
This is a note about the previous section.
It's interesting that IFCN's denial of membership stems from the fact that OpIndia does not entertain left liberal views. [1]
The fact that IFCN rejects OpIndia's membership application because it prefers to focus on right leaning views is a complete different thing from the ability to objectively assess if the right leaning fact is correctly presented. If anything it brings out a possible bias of IFCN.
Stated another way an organization that focuses on Cricket as a sport may be biased to it, but to be denied IFCN membership because it may not report Soccer facts accurately is quite controversial. One's bias and one's objectivity may be two different things.
Infact Wikipedia's own policy on Reliable Sources under the heading of Biased Sources acknowledges this, that biased sources need not be inaccurate. The bias may be a focus on a certain topic and need not mean its being presented incorrectly. [2]
Hence the Wikipedia lead section to the OpIndia page that has a single line which disparages a good organization, '...and has propagated fake news over multiple occasions.[3]' is incorrect, malicious and needs a correction.
A number of other reputed media outlets including the BBC could have been factually incorrect. Why should such an observation not be made of them then?
I would request an edit of the lead section. I'd be happy to draft it if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.183.84 ( talk • contribs)
Pectore, why have you edited the article without ending the discussion here? From what I can see, your version gives undue weight to claims made by OpIndia itself. It also removes citations for fabricated stories and reduces it stating AltNews has claimed it has produced such stories whereas there the previous version included citations from sources than AltNews. I think this would qualify as WP:DE. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Alt news , Newslaundary have the same ideological leaning, OpIndia has opposing views and ideology. Words of business rivals or ideological rivals cannot be taken as the gospel truth. Shubham2019 ( talk) 08:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Look at this article on the fake news being spread by a page owned by Alt-news co-founder [3] , following this fact check Facebook marked the news as fake on Facebook and the co-founder apologised on Twitter. But this apology came in almost a month after the fake news was circulated widely. Shubham2019 ( talk) 08:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Also here [4] Wall Street Journal has spread fake news by fabricating false quote from Ankit Sharma's brother. Does this make WSJ a fake news website? You can write about the misreporting done by OpIndia in the reception subsection. But introducing a news media portal (which has actual reporters on the ground) as a fake news website is unacceptable. Shubham2019 ( talk) 09:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Here are secondary sources backing Fact Hunt's claim [5] also another source which is from none other than Newslaundary but quotes Prasar Bharti News Service( India's national broadcaster) [6]
Shubham2019 ( talk) 14:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand AltNews is IFCN certified but kindly understand IFCN certificate doesn't mean that IFCN endorses or believes that each and every article written by them is true. IFCN has certified the website based on samples provided by the website to the assessor. Kindly read the Application and assessment of Alt News by IFCN [7] They have provided samples on which they feel most confident and which show their Non-partisanship. The IFCN assessor also has made the assesment based on these samples. However this website which checks media bias clearly states that AltNews has a left bias [8] OpIndia's right bias is stated by themselves. Therefore conflicting ideologies fact check each other and put forward opposing views. Had there been one article on OpIndia in the sample provided by AltNews there pieces could not have been doubted. But since these is not. It can be concluded that AltNews's word can't be taken as gospel. Also, every websites/editor/mediahouse makes genuine mistakes and they correct them too. Making mistakes is no reason for discrediting their hard work as fake news. IFCN rejected OpIndia's application because of the clearly stated right bias. Not because they think OpIndia spreads fake news. I suggest we put the fake news citations in the reception subsection. Shubham2019 ( talk) 15:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
If major corporations are the criterion then FactHunt is relied on by Facebook which is the largest digital social media platform in the world. [9] Shubham2019 ( talk) 07:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is another Reliable source WP:RS which proves authenticity of Facthunt because the one of the most reputed media house quotes its Fact Check. [10] Shubham2019 ( talk) 10:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I see an inherent bias in IFCN India regarding this case. IFCN in USA has certified both Right leaning and Left Leaning Websites. Shubham2019 ( talk) 19:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
However, the Indian management seems to have a left bias. The founders are allowed to have an ideological bias as in case of Pratik Sinha and Alt News but not in case of FactHunt and Neel Kamal? That's very convenient.
As long as the founders are not members of the party and not actively involved in campaigning for some political party they should be certified. Shubham2019 ( talk) 19:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The screenshot says it is recommended that the application may not be accepted. Kindly review. Shubham2019 ( talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
If the credibility of IFCN itself is in question then we are swimming in unknown waters here and need to review Wikipedia's previous positions and resolves with respect to fact checking in India. Shubham2019 ( talk) 20:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that these fact checking sites become known when famous people or media houses endorse them as in case of NDTV and Ravish Kumar with AltNews [11] Shubham2019 ( talk) 20:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
So logically when the leading media house in India i.e. India Today quotes FactHunt it means they believe its reliability and fairness. Therefore, there is a strong case that FactHunt is indeed a reliable source. WP:RS Shubham2019 ( talk) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, Check Your Fact is not "right-leaning" despite its affiliation with
The Daily Caller. Check Your Fact stated in
its 2020 IFCN assessment that it "pursues a non-partisan mission of fact-checking public figures on both sides of the political spectrum"
and that "Scanning sources across the political spectrum allows us to keep our claim selection neutral"
. —
Newslinger
talk
08:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
References
So far, no editors have been able to produce a reliable source that shows positive coverage of OpIndia. The content in this article is similiar to the content of articles on other unreliable sources, such as Breitbart News ( RSP entry), InfoWars ( RSP entry), and WorldNetDaily ( RSP entry). If there is no reliable source available that contradicts the coverage in this article, the neutrality template should be removed from this article. — Newslinger talk 08:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The lead section of this article states:
"However, in May 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be accredited as a fact-checker on grounds of political partisanship and poor fact-checking methodologies.[3]" If this is indeed the rejection, then the grounds for it are not faulty fact checking but other concerns.
The citation link 3 should provide details of the IFCN rejection. Instead it brings up a host of links to articles published by the very sources that OpIndia often finds faults with. Such other links should be brought up elsewhere in the article, not here.
The one link that the page provides is to an IFCN assessment by Kanchan Kaur in Feb 2019 (not May 2019)
The section 2 on non-partisan reporting states "In all the ten examples they’ve provided, the conclusions arrived at indicate focus on one political party or ideology." A focus on one party or ideology is not inaccurate. It's just a focus. Readers seeking news on right leaning subjects will appreciate it.
It also states "...its Editorial Guidelines ...clearly indicates its political stand. I quote: “We won’t entertain the usual left-liberal narrative.”" Again this may be a valid ground for IFCN's rejection but it does not make the fact checks incorrect. It may pick up articles with a right leaning focus to check or publish.
Other transgressions reported by IFCN in this rejection also seem to be of a less serious nature and some are difficult to comprehend. Like section 6b seems to say "one has a note at the end that they had published a satirical article, but it does not indicate that the article under contention is the one under which the note is published."
The correction is published under the article and states that the earlier draft was incorrect. Why must it state the obvious that it is an earlier draft of the article 'above'?
It does bring into question a point raised by Shubham that the IFCN's India office may have a left bias. That thread is awaiting conclusion and is an important one to conclude.
If the IFCN rejection is for reasons other than faulty fact checking then this entire line needs to be placed in a section other than the lead or omitted.
OpIndia is a fairly established player in the digital news space as can be seen in the discussions above and by the number of engagements it draws on its Twitter posts. This should be the focus while introducing it.
Thanks
182.56.241.148 ( talk) 18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Ruchir
Tayi,
The effect you have given is just the opposite of what I was asking.
I repeat, OpIndia is a fairly established player in the digital news space as can be seen in the discussions above and by the number of engagements it draws on its Twitter posts. This should be the focus while introducing it.
You agree stating, "I'd agree with you that IFCN has not stated any fault in the fact checking methodologies" and still retain the line "the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be accredited as a fact-checker on grounds of political partisanship and poor fact-checking methodologies" in the lead.
That's contradictory.
Most OpIndia readers are interested in knowing if the facts they present are correct. They may be biased to the right wing, but are the right wing facts correct? Readers may not be interested to know if there was full disclosure of financing which will change from time to time, or if they solicit user fact checks or have a standard methodology for reporting apologies.
Hence if IFCN does not fault OpIndia specifically for erroneous fact checking but on other ancillary grounds the entire line on IFCNs rejection is giving undue weightage to IFNC in the introduction of OpIndia.
The other line you have added "The site has been documented to have propagated fake news on multiple occasions.[4]" would also need to be moved out as these are precisely the sources AltNews, NewsLaundry that OpIndia has regularly found faults with.
Thanks
Ruchir
PS this process of altering Wikipedia where only certain editors can make changes is rather onerous, specially were observation don't elicit a specific response but are interpreted suit ones own ends and present a completely different effect from the one sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.241.148 ( talk) 02:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@ 182.56.241.148: Ruchir wikipedia is not a closed enterprise. You can join wikipedia and make constructive edits over time to be able to edit articles. I can also edit the article right now but i am waiting for consensus in good faith. Although many contributors have not been discussing lately. I am sure consensus can be reached based on the large number of points I along with other editors have raised in the discussions above. Shubham2019 ( talk) 09:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shubham,
A process exists, I understand, to allow people to edit over time. I can't edit this article presently.
I'm still raking up the same issue you had raised on Feb 13, 2020 'This description is highly biased'. Your other concerns about IFCN India seem to be unanswered too.
The outcome of the Wikipedia edit process leaves much to be desired if after several days of protracted discussion amongst those who can edit it, we still have about the same write up that we had a month ago which is unduly harsh to a respectable and popular player in the digital media space.
I cant even seem to refer the fact check articles webpage of OpIndia in the talk section where it makes counters allegations against other players in the digital media space.
Clearly something needs to change.
Thanks for the reply.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AbidingLight ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tayi,
The OpIndia lead states 'The site has been documented to have propagated fake news on multiple occasions'.
You say the lead is a summary of the article. Its content section states, 'OpIndia has accused multiple prominent media outlets — The Wall Street Journal, India Today, Scroll.in, The Wire and others of spreading fake news and leftist propaganda.[7]'.
OpIndia’s contention must be included in the lead if it is to be a correct summary of the article.
The case was made out earlier that claims made by IFCN registered AltNews should be given greater precedence over OpIndia. However, the IFCN rejection is not because OpIndia’s fact checking is flawed, but other reasons of a right wing bias, undeclared additional financing details and lack of certain fact checking hygiene factors that may potentially lead to incorrect fact checking in future. Have discussed these at the end of this comment.
If IFCN does not cite inaccuracies in OpIndia’s fact checks, then OpIndia’s fact checks against its contemporaries and links to its repository of such checks should be included in the page and stated ahead of what its competition says.
It could also be brought out that the counter claims are by competitors.
Out of curiosity would you be able to show me a left wing digital media outlet introduced this way on Wikipedia?
The co-founder for NewsLaundry for example has a write up on Wikipedia which describes NewLaundry quite differently. "...Newslaundry,[1] a media critique, news and current affairs website. The news organisation does not carry advertisements and runs on a subscription-based model. Newslaundry's Manisha Pande, along with Sandeep Pai won the 2015 Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for investigative reporting. Abhinandan is currently the full-time CEO of Newslaundry. "
Why does it not state that OpIndia accuses it of peddling fake news? And in the second line itself?
Has OpIndia been unjustly singled out for this harsh treatment?
In the section below I summarize what the IFCN rejection says:
1) The first concern is that OpIndia is focused on trying to disprove information put out by a certain political party or by organizations that are seemingly inclined toward that political party. Its method in reaching or presenting its conclusions presents evidence of potential bias. -
No instance of inaccurate reporting is cited but it alludes to a potential right wing bias which may impact future fact checks?
2) More often than not, the evidence that is used is usually from speeches made by political parties or the government, which are merely countering the claims. Data is rarely used, and then only to counter data claims made by political or other organizations.
IFCN does not provide any example of inaccurate reporting. Political speeches are credible sources of information especially if an article is about what a politician said
3) Additionally, most claims are countered by making disparaging comments
Once again that does not make the fact check inaccurate
4) The applicant lists its owner but offers no further details on funding.
Financing details change from time to time. Notice IFCNs own comment states ‘It would help for the applicant to provide more information on funding’. The absence does not mean OpIndia’s fact check is inaccurate. No example of inaccuracy is provided.
5) The applicant does not have a clear corrections policy.
This appears to be a hygiene factor on which there could be some improvement, though in my previous comment I had pointed out that the IFCN was being fastidious. It has no bearing on the accuracy of fact check
At best one can summarize the IFCN assessment to 'The IFCN rejection did not cite any instance of incorrect fact checking in the material OpIndia provided it. IFCN rejected the application based on concerns of potential inaccuracies in future because of OpIndia's political leaning, unwillingness to declare additional funding details and a need for other fact check hygiene factors."
These details should to be modified in the body of the write up. And since the IFCN did not find any flaw with the OpIndia fact check per se, the entire rejection seems a little weak and less consequential and could be eliminated from the lead section to make it more charitable like NewLaundry's.
Thanks again
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AbidingLight ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Since OpIndia is a questionable source, content from OpIndia is excluded from articles per Wikipedia's verifiability policy and undue weight policy. We are able to use a limited amount of information from OpIndia for uncontroversial self-descriptions under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy. OpIndia's claims regarding any third party, such as Newslaundry, do not fall under WP:ABOUTSELF and are excluded. OpIndia's number of Twitter ( RSP entry) followers is totally irrelevant; Breitbart News ( RSP entry) has over four times the number of Twitter followers as OpIndia, and it is also considered generally unreliable.
The Poynter Institute and the International Fact-Checking Network are nonpartisan organizations that set standards for high-quality journalism. OpIndia failed to meet these standards, but 11 other Indian fact checkers (including Alt News and Boom) did meet them, and that is why they are considered reliable while OpIndia is not. It does not make sense to claim that the IFCN is biased because it rejected OpIndia, as that argument presupposes that OpIndia is a reliable source, when there is ample evidence from multiple reliable sources that OpIndia is not. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Whether "the governor of New York writes an article in a newspaper"
has no effect on the
reliability of the newspaper. You may want to review the
reliable sources guideline. OpIndia's "malicious campaign" to
dox a Wikipedia editor backfired on themselves via the
Streisand effect, and they have only themselves to blame. —
Newslinger
talk
09:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
An RfC last year at WP:RSN [3] concluded that "There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail." That RfC concluded that "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." Doug Weller talk 15:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
In the US, now, outlets with declared ideological leanings are accepted as fact-checkers (Daily Caller, for example) and it is a high time people in India drop this pretense of ‘neutrality’.
Check Your Fact pursues a non-partisan mission of fact-checking public figures on both sides of the political spectrum. To ensure this, our writers have built out social media feeds on Tweetdeck (Twitter) and CrowdTangle (Facebook) that track the statements made by both conservatives and liberals.
Scanning sources across the political spectrum allows us to keep our claim selection neutral.
"right-leaning", and states that its
"disdain towards the ‘left-liberal narrative’"forms their
"ontological positions on the basis of which [they] operate". — Newslinger talk 06:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, the neutrality template needs to stay on. The chief minister of the most populated scale in India has written for OpIndia. Hence credibility is accepted. Also the fake news byline in the introduction needs to go as soon as possible or it needs to come in all left wing media portals specially the usual fake news peddlers like the wire, Newslaundry, telegraph, quint, scroll.
Shubham2019 ( talk) 09:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
"The chief minister of the most populated scale in India has written for OpIndia"does not make OpIndia reliable. Please review the reliable sources guideline. You've provided no evidence that any of the media outlets you've listed are "fake news peddlers". If you find reliable sources that contain positive coverage of OpIndia, please share them. — Newslinger talk 09:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Personal attacks -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I randomly arrived here after an automated filter alerted me that Opindia is a recently banned source. This triggered my curiosity. I quickly read through the article and googled for few minutes. The article seems like a hit job on Opindia for the following reasons: Specific immediately actionable concern1. Single source UNDUE Weight bias: Fifty percent of the article is based on single source (Prashant Bhat and Kalyani Chadha) which is a primary source (reporting own research in a journal, this wikipedia article on Opindia does not cite the secondary sources which have requoted the primary source Prashant Bhat and Kalyani Chadha). Where is due balance? Where is the "use secondary sources and avoid primary sources" rule? In the "content" section, please condense those five points to one or two sentences, similar to the last two paragraphs of the "content" section. Actually, remove this source all together, because it is a primary source. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Concerns of largest context2. Be Transparent everywhere on wikipedia re: why Opindia is being targetted? Why has Opindia suddenly become the target here on their article as well as recently has been banned as a source? It made me ask myself, what triggered two simultaneous recent hits against one entity/Opindia? To keep the inter-linked issues transparent, can the watcher/custodian editors and those instrumental in banning the Opindia as source please answer this? Post links to those discussions and decisions here. 3. Is Opindia targeted for writing expose on corrupt practices of power mongering wikipedia admins/editors? Quick google search showed that Opindia recently wrote some articles, some of which expose the alleged corrupt practices by editors, hegemonistic cartelization and power mongering in the "packing order among the gang of wolves" who breed camp followers and quickly kill/block threats/challengers. Eg. read Opindia article "Journalist who exposed cartel of Wikipedia editors permanently banned from the platform for ‘offline harassment’", there are more such articles by Opindia on wikipedia editors allegedly doing wrong, just google "wikipedia and Opindia". 4. WP:COI: Are the accused being judge, jury and executioner to liberate themselves and to kill Opindia? Has this hit job done only after Opindia started to expose the alleged "Wikipedia Hegemonists" (if such a thing exists)? Who are they? Were they investigated (post the links to those threads)? Was the investigation done by the people who did not know the accused before? Was it done by the mates who all have incentives in preserving the "scratch each other's back" power structure? Are any of the accused, their friends, supporters, proteges/camp followers, etc involved in the decision making regarding banning Opindia as source and suddenly loading its article up with hit job like content? Anyone with COI must be isolated from Opindia related decisions and edits, their previous work must be reverted. 5. Will I become your target for making this post?" Does this alleged "Gang of Wikipedia Bullies" go after the editors who asks such questions (in this case its me raising the questions)? Do they have off line chat rooms and means to conspire? Will I too now become an item on their hit list being silently watched as the article in item 3 says? 6. Corrupt hegemonist admins/editors will get wikipedia killed. I am asking the obvious questions, not yet accusing anyone, But there are too many read flags. There is a risk that the large number of editors will lose interest in wikipedia due to such hegemony structure, they might lobby with their governments to force google to just ban wikipedia from their search algorithm, there are many competitors such as Everipedia. Lot easier to lobby the govt to ban indirectly/directly ban/replace/ wikipedia, than to reform the hegemony at wikipedia. In one stroke wikipedia will die due to the small number of corrupt admins. Sadly with that the hard work of millions of editors will be pushed into oblivion. 7. Please answer, but don't manipulate as I do not have the skills to match master manipulator WP:GAMER editors/admins"
As an IP who does not have wikipedia account, I know well that IP are often treated as "dumb trampleable softest targets". I have edited enough as IP to sense that there definitely is power structure which is not in tune with wikipedia rules, there are
WP:GAMING (master manipulator admin/editors). Those who are kind enough to answer to this post, if you counter any of the corrective measures suggested by me, then please cite the 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Summary of corrective actions needed8. Take these corrective actions, last one is easiest, immediately start with that. PS: NO COI statement. I am not related to Admins/editors, wikipedia foundation, Opindia, any party or religious organisation, media house or journalism, religious/party NGO, or their staff. I have always been an IP, with no friends or enemies on wikipedia. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OpIndia is an Indian right-wing[13] news portal founded in December 2014 by Rahul Raj and Kumar Kamal.[20] In 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application for accreditation as a fact checker.The news portal is widely known for raising the voice for hindus and exposing fake news against hindus. Xcel 1709 ( talk) 07:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The reports from opindia have been quoted in court proceedings (Ref: https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1197440372504293376) Kapish16 ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Considering that OpIndia almost exclusively posts communalist stuff or attacks non-right-wingers, I'd like to ask if calling it right-wing is more accurate. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Talk 10:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Come to think about it, why does the article not explicitly say that OI is a fake news website in the first sentence? After all, if OI deliberately lies repeatedly, then they are a fake news website under Wikipedia’s definition at Fake news website. They lie, then post on Twitter and Facebook, and they repeat it. All criteria are satisfied. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Talk 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely critical of the site in question, including the description. Section:Content is dominated by unnecessarily detailed critical UoM report and does not describe its content or style anywhere other than a single sentence towards the end. I see dozens of violations of WP:NPOV. I'm starting an NPOV dispute. LΞVIXIUS 💬 14:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Though the fact checks cover a variety of subjects, they do concentrate on a certain political organization or organizations with a certain ideology. Of the ten fact-checks given as examples, nearly all are focused on trying to disprove information put out by a certain political party or by organizations that are seemingly inclined toward that political party. Or, have writing that indicates that an opposition party is either behind it or is taking advantage of it. Its method in reaching or presenting its conclusions presents evidence of potential bias.
The OpIndia story claims that the boys who called away Rohit were all Muslim. This is false. The FIR names five Muslim boys and one Hindu. In fact, it was the Hindu boy who called away Rohit. OpIndia, of course, omitted this nugget of information.
In fact, even in the audio clip OpIndia gave us, Rajesh can be heard telling them that the boys who called away Rohit that day were not all Muslim.
Why then did OpIndia claim that the boys were all Muslim?
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
175.45.149.63 ( talk) 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It is the most trusted media in India as of 2020
OpIndia openly claims being a rightist ideology portal. This doesn't mean they publish fake news. Their articles show the truth that very few media houses are brave enough to show. It works constantly towards calling out left wing extremism in its articles. The fact checkers quoted in this article like Alt News are the darling of Indian extreme left media houses. They have notoriously fact checked sarcasm, satire, idiom, proverbs and phrases of right wing news portals and personalities. However the almost never fact check false claims and news peddled by highly influential left wing portals and websites. The person who has written this article is prejudiced and this article needs serious improvement. Shubham2019 ( talk) 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
3rd Source is a bbc document and is itself quoting from other sources like Altnews and Boom articles which are not a reliable source as pointed out earlier. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
4th source doesn't have any connection to OpIndia. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2nd Source is a Boom article which is a dead link and doesn't exist. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
1st source/reference is a fact check of a mistake, that mistake was corrected in the subsequent edit and pointed it out in the article as well. Now the article is completely error free. Mistakes are but human. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
5th source is an opinion article from Pakistan owned news website without any sources. It lauds some websites and discredits the others. Opinions are not references. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
8th reference/source has done a fact checking of satire. Shubham2019 ( talk) 18:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
7th reference is a critical article from newslaundary. It doesn't show that OpIndia spreads fake news. Any student willing to learn about Biogas generation can learn it from YouTube or Wikipedia itself. People don't go to OpIndia to learn about the details of renewable energy. Shubham2019 ( talk) 06:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is a based projection of newslinger that operates for left it cells Aviks3 ( talk) 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
First of all this article is totally fake and the Leftist propaganda clearly shows there views on there fake secularism. Secound thing Wikipedia never judge on anything they just provide information but in this article they making allegation against highly reliable online platform Opindia. You can bark you can cry you can laugh but i believe in Karma. Om shanti. Jai Sri Ram Rahul.of.m3 ( talk) 11:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There are many media houses who are biased for left ideology like Alt news, Scroll.in, The Quint, The Print, News Laundry, they openly spread fake news and lie about Right Wing and a particular community, and OpIndia caught them many time, OpIndia has published many articles about fake news and lie spread or published by these media house. Those who writing these article on Wikipedia on OpIindia either they are unware from these facts or they are also biased against OpIndia. @Rahul4931 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul4931 ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The description of this page oozes a clear left wing bias. Any source that is not from an already left leaning/overtly left wing publisher is not cited by the editor of this page. In the many videos posted on its Youtube channel as well as through articles on its own website, OpIndia has refuted the one sided claims made on this page. To make matters worse, Wikipedia has made this page semi protected which does not help refute any allegations made by OpIndia against the editors of this page. If Wikipedia is indeed a non-partisan website, it must stop the blatant disregard of the contrary opinions- By making the page semi protected, Wiki has scored a self goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electranumera ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
[4] The UK's Stop Funding Hate has played a role with "about two dozen companies have withdrawn advertisements from OpIndia, citing “insidious content” and “hateful views” due to campaign they've run, must update that article. Anyway, there's a lot in this that can be used. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opindia is NOT Right Wing because your refernces show nothing give refernce or remove the word Anna4525 ( talk) 05:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Read through only if you are not offended.
OpIndia targets Indian Christians for absolutely false reasons. OpIndia is living in a world of delusion. OpIndia thinks that "Christians exist in India for converting people only. Indian Christians have only 1 objective - convert all other people to their faith. Christians in India are converting many people forcefully."
I am surprised the present Indian government is still allowing such a contemptuous "news" platform namely OpIndia to flourish.
If Christians in India were so keen on converting people of other faiths, then today why is the Christian population just 2% of the population of India?
The truth is that Christians are among the most peaceful and well-educated people in India. Christians have the highest literacy rate in India.
106.217.81.168 (
talk)
03:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I am putting together a section on OpIndia's attacks on Wikipedia. This needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources -- our internal discussions are not reliable sources -- so please list any that you find here. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Karthikndr: The fact that OpIndia has published "anti-Muslim commentary" is well-substantiated. First, Newslaundry has analyzed OpIndia's anti-Muslim discourse in depth:
Newslaundry analyses of OpIndia's anti-Muslim commentary
|
---|
|
Second, OpIndia published seven articles falsely claiming that a child was sacrificed in a mosque by a group of "all Muslims", with the OpIndia English article stating, "A new mosque had been built in the village and it is being alleged that there was a belief that if a Hindu was 'sacrificed', the mosque would become powerful and its influence would increase." These claims were debunked by the following cited sources, which noted that OpIndia added anti-Muslim claims (e.g. "all Muslims", "mosque would become powerful") that were not corroborated by anything at all:
Sources covering OpIndia's human sacrifice articles
|
---|
|
OpIndia's human sacrifice articles constituted both fake news and anti-Muslim commentary, and I'm not sure how it's possible to argue that the human sacrifice claims were not anti-Muslim.
Finally, OpIndia was boycotted by advertisers after it published an article with a headline including the argument "non-Muslims have the right to advertise that they don’t hire Muslims". The boycott was initiated by Stop Funding Hate, whose director stated, "We've seen a lot of hateful media headlines in the past few years, but we’ve rarely seen such overt advocacy of discrimination on religious grounds." Over 20 advertisers pulled their ads from OpIndia in response to OpIndia's article because the article advocated taking action against Muslims. The incident was covered in the following cited sources:
Sources covering advertisers' boycott of OpIndia
|
---|
Altogether, three significant parts of the article (which total about one-quarter of the article body) describe OpIndia's anti-Muslim commentary. The lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article. The words "anti-Muslim commentary" succinctly encapsulate these elements of the article, and are well-suited for the lead section. — Newslinger talk 07:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove:
"The website has published fake news and anti-Muslim commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque." As the website is 100% authentic and false and fake news smasher with proper evidences. It is not at all anti-muslim, the fact that majority of crime in India is indeed conducted by that particluar community cannot be ignored. All the news provided by Op-India are removing the sham and only showing true picture unbiasedly.
(Redacted)
Suyesha ( talk) 15:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence about OpIndia regularly writing badly about Wikipedia is grammatically incorrect. "Declared an unreliable source from Wikipedia" is the phrase I am writing about as "from Wikipedia" makes no sense in this context. It should be written as "Declared by Wikipedia to be an unreliable source" or something like that. 45.251.33.88 ( talk) 06:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
[ Trolling deleted ]
Hi TheBirdsShedTears, although I appreciate that you cited reliable sources for the plagiarism incident, I don't think a single incident with nominal coverage is prominent enough to include into the article's lead section, particularly in the opening paragraph. Most of the other content in the lead section refers either to a recurring attribute of OpIndia (e.g. fake news, anti-Muslim content, criticism of "liberal" media) or to an especially prominent incident (i.e. the Bihar human sacrifice claims). Would you mind removing the plagiarism incident from the lead section, or at least repositioning it after the more prominent aspects of OpIndia? — Newslinger talk 05:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
On first glance there seem to be neutrality issues with the article. Most of the sources that are used here are of different political alignment and should be avoided perhaps, e.g The Wire. There are jabs starting from the very first paragraph, which is previously unseen on any article whatsoever. A total revision of the article is recommended. Need comments. Jenos450 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
This news channel is not spreading any kind of fake news, they have proof for everything the that they publishing
Due to such topics and peoples on wikipedia, quality of wikipedia is decreasing.... Jayant khandebharad ( talk) 04:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TexanBhai ( talk) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) A lot of information about OpIndia on Wikipedia is coming from far Left leaning and extremist Islamist supporting entities in my opinion. OpIndia is a far right leaning organization (correct). The news about the boy being sacrificed was wrong and I recall the Hindi editor apologizing for it. Wikipedia should stick to just reporting facts and prevent it from being used by groups keep on spreading propaganda. I would like to suggest changes to what is written about OpIndia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanBhai ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hii everyone Wikipedia Claim To Be Neutral Although its laughable How Can U label them As Anti Muslim Or Something like That?????? If u are doing indeed then better Add same thing about Quint Wire Scroll Too They too are Hinduphobic As eminent From their tones of Article. Better write more Neutral Lead of this site As was created last time by Senior editor. Hope u will listen. Samboy 01681 ( talk) 16:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Please remove the Fake news from below and remove the reference for the 2020 incident. If you MUST keep the 2020 incident then you also have to include the fact that the Hindi editor Ajeet Bharti had himself issued a long apology on YouTube for that mistake and that he had relied on the veracity of some of his sources which he should not have. They do publish anti-Islamist commentary so it should be worded as such. By saying anti-muslim you are not differentiating between the two which is a mistake in my humble opinion.
The website has published fake news[21] and anti-Muslim[25] commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque.[26] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TexanBhai (
talk •
contribs)
14:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 16:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes there is no such a fake news.Why are you biased on this media agency. Niteshhacker ( talk) 10:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The Quint , scroll , print etc are purely hinduphobic but in their respective wikipedia pages its not mentioned to maintain neutrality but how come here neutrality is not maintained Even Ravish kumar and his media NDTV news have spread fake news at multiple instances. Wikieditor457 ( talk) 04:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Vengeance 01, the "pro-Hindutva"
descriptor in the
short description is supported by the sources in
Special:Permalink/1009220241 § cite note-Hindutva-39. —
Newslinger
talk
12:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Newslinger: I know it is sourced but don't you think it violates the policy of WP:NPOV to mention about a particular subject in such a negative light and that too in Short description ?? Even though many so called fact checking websites or channels too had published fake news and anti-religious sentiments in the past like NDTV, Quint and so on. Vengeance 01 ( talk) 08:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Tayi Arajakate: I can't get What you are saying, Can you please elaborate ? My point is as per
WP:NPOV Is it relevant to mention "pro-Hindutva"
in
short description ?
Vengeance 01 (
talk)
12:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Wikipedia’s aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative.
@ Tayi Arajakate: I agree with you and i am satisfied with this arguments, Anyway can i ask you and Newslinger a out of the box question here ?? How to sign out on talk pages using coloured signature ???? Vengeance 01 ( talk) 12:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Berrely, I noticed that you changed the locations of the citations in the lead section on two occasions, recently in Special:Diff/1013649855 and two months ago in Special:Diff/1002295534. These citations were positioned directly after controversial descriptors because this article has a long history of editors removing the descriptors without taking the cited sources into account. The text–source integrity guideline ( WP:INTEGRITY) allows us to position the citation bundles closer (in this case, adjacent to) the text it supports in order to ensure that readers and editors understand exactly which sources support the descriptors. Also, the WP:CITEVAR guideline recommends against changing the citation style of an article unless one is going to make significant contributions to the article content, or unless one has obtained consensus beforehand. The citation positioning is intentionally implemented to force editors to consider the citations before modifying or removing the descriptor, as a way of minimizing disruptive editing on this article. I hope this clarifies why the citations were positioned the way they were. — Newslinger talk 05:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there a paticular reason that the URL in the infobox and external links link to the about page? I would change it but it's on the blacklist, and I feel like there is likely a reason it's linked there instead of the mainpage. — Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 18:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Newslinger and Tayi Arajakate: Since you both are very active on these page, Thus I ping you both;
OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia in March 2020 (alongside Swarajya and TFIpost) after Sharma, in an OpIndia piece, published personally identifying information about a Wikipedia editor who helped write the encyclopaedia's article on the 2020 Delhi riots, which resulted in the editor leaving Wikipedia
This bit about a editor being targeted by the OpIndia
can indeed be true. But the cited source doesn't mention about these at all. Please bring a reliable source which clearly mentions this for verification of readers. Best
Holy Contributor 92 (
talk)
03:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Tayi Arajakate: Yes, I agree the article is behind a paywall. I want to read this full article without subscription and don't bombard with talk page warnings. I wasn't disruptive here just asked quotes for this bit and that's why moved to talk page immediately.
OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia in March 2020 (alongside Swarajya and TFIpost) after Sharma, in an OpIndia piece, published personally identifying information about a Wikipedia editor who helped write the encyclopaedia's article on the 2020 Delhi riots, which resulted in the editor leaving Wikipedia
@ Newslinger:, Already added relevant quotes. I want a bit more for my verification. Thanks Holy Contributor 92 ( talk) 04:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@
Newslinger: None. But did OpIndia
really leaked his personal detail ???? As you said in a quote. I read one of their article in which they named him and exposed him but could't found anything realted to his personal life. Anyway, Thanks for the quotes.
Holy Contributor 92 (
talk)
05:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pradsona ( talk) 15:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Opindia is largely followed News Portal of India.
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2409:4064:2D0C:DC1B:ED75:9D2F:59DA:5BF6 ( talk) 21:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
9
Should OpIndia be italicised as a news outlet? — Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 15:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The content regarding this news portal is misinformation particularly word right wing and anti muslim I request you to make changes to your article True seeker Man ( talk) 14:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you True seeker Man ( talk) 14:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is wrongly propagated , please allow to remit this 2402:E280:2178:105:E49B:EA81:9BA4:D585 ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
OpIndia is literally InfoWars of India, you can check all the reliable sources in the lead stating its a fake news website, there is NO reliable source says opindia as a legitimate news website, sources here [9] and if you read the article, there is tons more.
It has been rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Fact checkers certified by the IFCN have identified 25 fake news stories published by OpIndia between January 2018 and June 2020. [10] [11]
Newslaundry January 2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Newslaundry June 2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wire sacrifice
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda619 ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
One sided projection in introduction itself. Controversies and Allegations must be given in seperate Tab and with heading like how other media pages are given. Sreenivasan KG1 ( talk) 21:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Xenophobic traits against Hindus go unreported,while alt news has fir’s;and dozens of instances where it had to take down fake news of Hindus attacking Muslims,it exists only on fake news and create communal hatred Casafranca ( talk) 18:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
In 2020, the West Bengal Police filed first information reports (FIRs) against Sharma, Roushan and Ajeet Bharti (then editor of OpIndia Hindi) in response to content published on OpIndia.
What was the content? Please be comprehensive. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opindia is Spreading awareness regarding how sold media is changing the news for the sake of money. someone has told that it is anti-muslim channel, No but it is stating truth with proof so there is no anti-community news and it is writing the news which is true and those culprits are involved in. Arvind.visavadiya ( talk) 05:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change " fake news[26] and anti-Muslim[30] commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque" to "the news of local small cities and villages in India which are only covered by regional channels and print media. Though greatly targeted for putting light on such incidents, against some communities, which goes against the narrative of the radical misinformation. OpIndia's biggest strength is the small news which big media houses miss out or intentionally ignore. Case in point, the Bihar sacrifice of a Hindu minor story was faced with a huge backlash, saying it was a fake claim, but no one cared to give the interview of police on this matter except for local newspapers( https://www.bhaskar.com/news/accused-arrested-in-case-of-body-recovery-073245-7077159.html) and OpIndia. " SenSaini ( talk) 10:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the website's URL must be added to the Information Box Wpakxl ( talk) 14:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed! The URL section should be added into the infobox. There’s no logical reason for not adding it there IndianHistoryEnthusiast ( talk) 05:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The Caravan has published an in-depth feature on our subject. Will quote the most interesting bits. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term fake news should be edited Sharannukala27 ( talk) 01:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Kumar's credentials are felicitous and germane for his discourse on the subject of media. Vide [5], which sets forth his academic antecedents in outline. And he observes on the right-wing alt portals in context of their perverse crusade against mainstream journalism, which, he avers, takes the form of fake-news and trolling. It is in lockstep with our own article's presentation on the foregoing aspect at OpIndia#Content #2. Don't think the citation should be removed. MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 18:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is doing biased about Opindia this is the verified newsletter it is talking about social issues so please don't say it that it is fake 2401:4900:802A:1C39:EC87:CFF:FEB2:AA44 ( talk) 16:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It's unfortunate to see how deeply bias has crept into Wikipedia. Use of adjectives for right-bias portals like OpIndia (which is obviously biased) is right wing, fake, controversial etc vs a portal like Wire (which is known globally for not just publishing biased fake news but actually doctoring and concocting 'stories' and I don't just mean Tek Fog or Meta controversies) has no mention of being left leaning, controversial or fake instead it is an award winning portal which has been (unfairly?) Targetted with defamation suits. Ankittyagi wiki ( talk) 18:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The text says fake news we site, while it isnt! Wikipedia should be free of propaganda 142.198.137.168 ( talk) 14:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Please add the URL of this site 2402:E280:230A:36:DC85:B20B:B3E5:A273 ( talk) 02:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
It would be more appropriate to say that "OpIndia is an Indian right-wing fake news website."
The inclusion of the word "fake" would be more in line with how we describe other such websites like Natural News, National Report, Palmer Report, Real Raw News etc. Alexandria Bucephalous ( talk) 04:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Please remove the 'frequently publishes misinformation' which is nothing but an anti-government hate statement" 49.36.107.198 ( talk) 04:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template. The claim is backed up by reliable sources. See
Talk:OpIndia#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2023 for a previous discussion on the subject. Feel free to start a discussion by pressing "New section" at the top of this talk page; I would recommend reading through the
archive before you do so.
Staraction (
talk |
contribs)
04:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
OpIndia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.204.23.45 ( talk) 10:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
OP India doesn't peddle fake news. Op India counters anti Hindu and anti nation narratives created by leftist portals like NewsClick, The Wire and so called secular, liberal gangs.
Opindia doesn't publish any fake news. It provides credible information which goes against interest of propaganda media.
Noone should believe the blatant wrong information mentioned in this article.
Can you provide any instances where Opindia published fake news ? ManindraLiberal ( talk) 22:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)