Talk:Janam TV

Check for copyright violation

I noticed that some of the content being added to the page was a cut-and-paste copyright violation of Janam TV's website. Can some experienced editors review the rest of the article for similar copyvio or plagiarism issues ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janam TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nextvindia.com/7-cross-tv/mib-grants-licence-to-janam-tv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Janam TV (Kerala BJP channel)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Janam TV (Kerala BJP channel). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 10:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary additions were removed

I have removed these lines

• The channel has been accused of practicing biased reporting in favour of Bharatiya Janata Party and also for propagating fake news

Since this is a news channel, it cannot be said that it favors a particular political party without clear reasons and evidence-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  05:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The first two links clearly state that the channel favours BJP. Janam TV is widely known as a BJP party channel even though the channel owners have denied this. Unless you bring sources to prove your claim otherwise, the content stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.149.27 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

And your claim that ‚since this is a news channel, it cannot be said that it favors a particular political party, is completely vague. What’s wrong in accusing a media channel of political bias when it is backed by multiple sources? You can see a similar sentence in Republic TV article, if that makes you happy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.149.27 (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Gnoeee: The content you are trying to restore is a blatant WP:OR. Also read above comment by Padavalamkuttanpilla. This content was added by a disruptive IP and has no consensus. Can you tell how sources even supports the content or why we should use the channel's opponents as sources? Ashishkafle (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply here. First of all the content is well sourced. The first claim that the channel is favouring BJP is supported by two well reputed sources, with one of them describing the channel as a "known BJP channel" and another describing it as "a channel that does not in any way hide its ideological affinity for the right-wing". The second claim that the channel propagates fake news is supported by three references, each of them exposing three different fake news spread by Janam TV. The sources used are Boomlive and Quint, both highly reputed fact checking websites. I will wait for other editors to restore the content before I place an edit request here. I also doubt the ground for your objection. You pointed WP:OR here in the talk page but mentioned WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH in your edit summary. 42.111.245.66 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

So you admit that you engaged in WP:OR and threw random sources hoping the content will be ignored in lieu of the references actually belonging to the opponents of this channel. I have checked your IP range and find that you are well known for engaging in WP:CANVASSING by IP hopping every other time. Why don't you use your own account? Ashishkafle (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, I am well within my rights to edit with or without an account. And regarding WP:CANVASSING accusation, being not a computer expert I am unaware why different IP addresses are registered whenever I make edits. And now coming to the matter, you still have not explained how WP:OR works here. I don't understand where you got the idea that I agreed it was an OR? OR is defined in Wikipedia as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—with no reliable, published sources". My edit was properly sourced and I further explained the specific sentences from the articles which substantiate that. Your claim that the sources used are "opponents of this channel" appears quite vague to me. How is one supposed to source any content on any media page then? I will wait for other editors to intervene. 42.111.245.66 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already told you how WP:OR works. You are also experienced enough to know about it. Your edit wasn't properly sourced but violated WP:OR. Ashishkafle (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong. You have not explained how WP:OR works here. The only argument I see from your comment is that the references belong to the opponents of this channel. Which I believe cannot be the ground for WP:OR. If your objection is not based on this, I deserve an explanation for why my edit comes under the purview of WP:OR.42.111.245.66 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Content should be written based on sources, NOT vice versa. You just copy-pasted a statement from Republic TV and then searched for references. In the process, either leftist or pro-Congress sources are cherry-picked. These sources are WP:BIASed (particularly anti-BJP Scroll and Quint), their reliability was questioned in Wikipedia itself. Then there is WP:SYNTH, you combined bits and parts from multiple sources to write a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, that is OR. Then there's the question of why we should give weight to what the channel's competitors (or rather rivals) say about them, the political leaning they attribute to the channel is based on their own point-of-view, the write-ups are opinion-based, not to mention they themselves are not clean with their inclination to other parties. About the fake news, even the most reputed agencies may sometimes make errors, you can give weight to such things only if it is "proven" that they have "deliberately" published it, but cases should be individually mentioned in the body (not lead) instead of generalizing as "they are known for propagating fake news" as it will violate WP:NPOV. 137.97.179.170 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Please add the following content removed by User:Ashishkafle on WP:OR grounds. The content is well sourced (I object to the claim by the user that the sources are opponents of the channel. Really? Is that a valid ground to doubt the credibility of the sources?)

The channel has been accused of practicing biased reporting in favour of Bharatiya Janata Party and also for propagating fake news.

Sources for practicing biased reporting in favour of Bharatiya Janata Party:

• Dailyo.in referes to the channel as "known BJP channel"
• Indian Express refers to the channel as "a channel that does not in any way hide its ideological affinity for the right-wing."
• Indian Express statesthat the channel was not given clearance for two years because of the promoters' links with RSS and BJP.
• Scroll.in writes that the channel is "known for its proximity to Sangh Parivar."
• The News Minute claims that the journalists in Janam TV are affiliated to BJP/RSS.
• The News Minute, The Wire and Dailyo calling the channel "BJP mouthpiece".
• Hindustan Times claims that the channel is "controlled by RSS".
• IB Times refers to the channel as "pro-RSS".

Sources for propagating fake news

• Boomlive's fact check on Janam TV report that Trupti Desai is converting to Christianity.
• The Quint fact check on Janam TV report on students raising ISIS flags at a Kerala college.
• Boomlive's fact check on another fake news propagated by Janam TV. 42.111.245.66 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• Janam TV has no RSS or BJP backing: Channel Chairman Priyadarshan officially stated . So don't try to ruin the article by adding inaccurate information.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/janam-tv-has-no-rss-or-bjp-backing-priyadarshan-115021800832_1.html -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  09:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources here (IndianExpress, Hindustan times) would be useful, but not the rest. The allegations about their affiliations can be covered on body, not the lead right now and we should also add the official statement of the channel,[1] which say that they have no backing of RSS or BJP. Ashishkafle (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Content disputes can't be resolved through edit requests. If discussion isn't productive, see WP:DR for further options. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit request is a clear denial of WP:ER that states consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial, particularly when there's already a discussion going on. Page is now protected to disengage the edit war, but you are still "requesting" others to continue edit warring on behalf of you, skipping the discussion. Your content and sources are challenged, go discuss (on the section reserved for it), do not scatter the discussion. 137.97.125.118 (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, sorry for starting this section before the dispute was resolved. But let me at least reply to the argument by User: Padavalamkuttanpilla. Yes, the former channel chairman says that the channel has no RSS backing. But my edit request does not suggest that either. My request was to include the sentence "The channel has been accused of practicing biased reporting in favour of Bharatiya Janata Party." This is not same as being backed by RSS. In fact, the chairman's reply was apparently because people think that the channel is officially backed by RSS because of the pro-RSS propaganda content it airs. 42.111.245.66 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:Ashishkafle, the sources I have used are Indian Express, Dailyo, The Quint and BOOM. Indian Express you have agreed to its credibility. Dailyo website is from India Today so I believe I do not have to explain further its credibility. The latter two are IFCN approved fact checking websites. So I do not think there is any ground for doubting the credibility of these sources. But if you still continue saying they are "opponents" of the channel, I cannot help. And I agree to your point that the official statement from the channel should also be included. 42.111.245.66 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)