Talk:OpIndia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

Not seeing any more RS; will move to SPS territory, which will be obviously attributed. ∯WBG^converse 12:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Bias

@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)

Doesn't seem any due from me. Also, we are not a collection of quotes. ∯WBG^converse 11:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

But it represents the side that why they are biased and they want to be.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes

@Winged Blades of Godric: here’re few suggestions for the article:

1. WP:LEAD should summarise what is written in article. I didn’t find a single line about fake news in rest of the article. IMHO, separate sections like background and reception must be formed here and things like IFCN response, fake news should go into Reception with mention in lead.
2. Another thing is connected with lead that lead should mention who owns website or founded it. BS article has details and thus, it should be go to background section with mention in lead.
3. Third thing is WP:Weight issue. Though we don’t consider Opindia is reliable but OpIndia wrote long rebuttal of rejection of IFCN’s recognition. See [https://www.opindia.com/2019/03/opindia-response-to-ifcn-international-fact-checking-networks-rejection-of-its-application-for-accreditation/ this]. This becomes WP:PRIMARY and should be given place in article by summarising. Also, ET article represents reply of OpIndia after decline which has not been covered in this article. This is cherrypicked.
4. Regarding fake news, this is case of WP:OVERCITATION and I want to merge them under one banner namely sources covering this topic are:.
   

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)

• I lack the time to discuss all these issues in depth, but here's a couple of suggestions. First, we only have enough information here to write a stub, and so the formatting guidelines at WP:LEAD don't really apply; the focus should be on making the content that exists as readable as possible. Second, overcitation is a problem, but multiple citations are often necessary when the topic is contentious; a cleaner format that would gather them into a single inline citation would be useful. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sources are enough to make article in start class. We have more information than just stub. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have done point no.4 which is non-controversial and eases reading of visitor.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: I did significant changes in article. Now, article seems balanced and neutral. I submitted at noticeboard for neutrality verification. If there is any objection then it can be addressed with consensus. Regards,— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with V93. ∯WBG^converse 10:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Kindly review your changes. You’re removing justifications, basic details from the subject and making it like one sided. ET article clearly says about site’s claim and side. You removed all my contributions in single click which includes name of editor, current ownership, English use template and all. I’m undoing your edit. If you’ve specific objection with specific line then discuss it here. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus would appear to be against you. Please desist from edit-warring, templating and otherwise weaponsizing. ——SN54129 10:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: hadn't even look at the changes which I did, I did them much later and he clearly nodded to form all citations in one place. Why you are removing all of the changes? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:52, 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)

@Slatersteven: Not at all. Article does cherry picking of facts. See this version. In this version, all the informations and coverages in WP:RS are covered but it has being removed.

Seems to me still pretty negative, still seems to only be notable because it is a fake fact checker.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Don't you think it can be balanced by using their justification from same source. Like, this article states opinion of editor of website but my addition got reverted here. This article is an example of WP:Cherrypicking of facts.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant to my point. Now I see no issue with adding Nupur J Sharma's "rebuttal", but your edit was very poorly written. I would suggest "Nupur J Sharma, the editor of OpIndia said other fact checkers had declared bias and that biased outlets should be allowed for balance, and described that the idea editor of OpIndia was biased as "laughable".Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Pinging @Winged Blades of Godric: for consensus.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Done ... ∯WBG^converse 12:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Of course he says that. How do independent commentators assess his denial? Guy (help!) 13:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No idea, but its a response to an accusation. But its from a third party source quoting him.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, am reading WP:MANDY for the first time and I agree with everything, it says. Thanks for removing the line /.. ∯WBG^converse 14:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Again, I don't have the time to get into the weeds here. WP:MANDY might be an essay, but its substance very much applies; bare denials of criticism, with no substance to back them up and with no support in reliable sources, are essentially worthless. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 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)

I've just read WP:MANDY and I'm not entirely convinced by the essay. These two quotes do contribute to the reader's understanding of the article subject:

• "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 quotes are dubious when taken at face value, but they are appropriately framed in the article (as quotes), and I would expect readers to be able to extract the above conclusions from the quotes. After all, the term fake news is in the second sentence of the article. — Newslinger talk 19:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Disagree ... ∯WBG^converse 12:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Everybody is going to reject allegations of bias against them. Saying that they do so is quite silly; and the fact that there is a tendency within our articles on US politics to report in great detail what people and organizations say about themselves doesn't make it any less silly to do so here. If allegations are going to be refuted, they ought to be refuted by sources of equal weight to those making the allegations. Newslinger, I know bad sources are your bailiwick, but you've to ask yourself why RS are only reporting the denials, and not backing them up themselves. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Articles on people who deny allegations frequently include their denials because of WP:BLPPUBLIC, but I understand that the policy does not apply to organizations once they reach a certain size. While there's no consensus here to include the quotes, please consider restoring the last sentence removed in Special:Diff/930716982, since The Economic Times is a reliable source:

  The IFCN's rejection of OpIndia disqualified the website for fact-checking contracts with web properties owned by Facebook and Google.

References

— Newslinger talk 14:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that sentence is informative; no objections to its restoration. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've re-added that sentence, and I'll be more cautious about rebuttals from fringe organizations in the future. — Newslinger talk 17:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Just noting that no objection from me either, as to that part. sentence. ∯WBG^converse 18:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

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)

 Not done Please read WP:NOR and WP:V, and please provide reliable sources supporting the content you want changed in the article. Please also make explicit what changes you would like made. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Question of Bias

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. Islamophobia was noted to be a dominant theme, achieved either by selective manipulation or outright faking. 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.

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)

Tayi Arajakate, propose your version, please. ∯WBG^converse 09:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, I'd propose the above refered paragraph to be replaced by a more encyclopedic version as displayed below.

Paragraph

AltNews has documented the site to be a significant purveyor of fake news, in India. 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; 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. The rejection disqualified OpIndia for fact-checking contracts with web properties owned by Facebook and Google. 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. The portal claims to have a policy of no-partisanship, however the editor-in-chief Nupur J Sharma has clarified that they do not claim to be ideologically neutral. 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. 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.

I'll come up with a comprehensive proposal for the stance of OpIndia, once I get the time later today. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I've updated my proposal for the rewording of the "Content & Reception" section. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

I am far from deciding what is the consensus but we don't need a "criticism" section. We have "Reception" and should be enough. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 18:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dubious citations

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)

As of now, they are and hence, there is no point in providing scores of links. See InfoWars for comparison. There will be claims and counterclaims but IFCN's certification matters a lot. As I have said up above, if there is any IFCN certified fact-checker who rebuts these allegations on OpIndia (or say calls out AltNews), they will get mentions as well over respective pages. ∯WBG^converse 12:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparison with InfoWars is not accurate. You can visit the two websites to see the clear contrast. In this article we see than a story by business standard which is considered a reliable source was retracted based on a fact-check done by opIndia. . This demonstrates that OpIndia is indeed a reliable source, despite being with a right wing ideology. Also visit my talk page and read A belated welcome discussion to see Liz's comments on OpIndia being a reliable source. Liz is an administrator on wikipedia. Shubham2019 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you are not trying to ascribe this message on your talkpage to User:Liz (who has only ever posted this message to you) in order to imply that she supports your position; that would be deeply mendacious. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:38, 9 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)

Yes, I just posted the welcome message to you on March 7th. The statement about OpIndia was posted by 2402:3A80:166C:B930:28CB:1E47:7D28:B45E back on Feb. 19th and they didn't sign their message. And since you edited the talk page on Feb. 20th, I would think that you'd know who edited the page. If you look at the edit history of the page, that becomes clear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsigned comments can be problematic that way. It was an old comment i agree. But it somehow was in continuation with your message. The general rule is that newer messages are below and the older one are above in a discussion.

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)

References

Reception

"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)

See my reply below.

I will advise you to approach WP:RSN for gaining broader community-feedback on the reliability of NewsLaundry and/or its usage over this part. article. ∯WBG^converse 12:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslaundry which is a questionable source at best, being used to source a large part of the article text is a clear violation regarding guidelines on undue weight.Pectore^talk 22:14, 7 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)

OpIndia is a questionable source, having been explicitly rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network in a detailed 2018 evaluation. There are 11 other Indian fact checkers that have been certified by the IFCN, including Alt News and Boom, and they are considered reliable. To address the concerns about dynamic sources, I've archived them into static pages.

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)

Ridiculous Introduction

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.

Wikipedia does not care what a subject calls itself, only what independent reliable sources say. Praxidicae (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not call it a "fake news" portal, some sources do claim that OpIndia has published fake news, but other reliable sources even refer to OpIndia as a fact-checking service.Pectore^talk 01:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:, why is the IFCN episode written in the introduction as well as under Reception in such a small article? Shubham Johri (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead section summarizes the body of the article, and the IFCN rejection is a key piece of information covered in the article. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You are creating a false balance between the questionable IFCN-rejected OpIndia and reliable sources (including the RNG Award-winning Newslaundry and the IFCN-certified Alt News). According to the verifiability policy, all article content needs to be supported by a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 04:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Observation regarding the Previous Note - This description is highly biased

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.

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.

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)

Reliable sources cite OpIndia as a fact-checking service, but also note that it is (1) clearly biased (2) was rejected for the Fact Checker certification, largely due to (1). Rediff and The Economic Times note OpIndia in the same vein as AltNews, so taking AltNews narrative on OpIndia at face value without OpIndia's counter claims violates the policy on undue weight. Pectore^talk 08:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, where are these sources that describe OpIndia as a fact-checking service? There's no equivalence between how OpIndia and Altnews are described, as far as I have seen, and I've read a fair number of the news sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Rediff does here, the Economic Times does here and the Business Standard clearly draws an equivalency here. I appreciate the discussion.Pectore^talk 00:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The rediff story is a reprint of the Business Standard story from the previous day (the first two paragraphs are the same, word for word). The ET story explains in detail why OpIndia's application to be registered factchecking website was rejected. As such you have a problem of due weight, because a far larger number of sources describe OpIndia as being a right-wing source and/or describe it as being biased. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The lead as I re-wrote states: "OpIndia is a right-wing Indian news portal which terms itself a fact-checking website and defines itself as "against mainstream media". This solves the issues of: accurately describing the bias of OpIndia (right-wing is literally the first adjective), being faithful to IFCN judgment ("terms itself a fact-checking website"), and represents their "worldview" ("against mainstream media"), but excludes the "fake news" from the lead bit which basically gives undue weight to AltNews and Newslaundry takes). The links above display that the media outside the fact-checker ring treats them as peers, OpIndia and AltNews spend large amounts of time "debunking" each other, and furthermore Newslaundry does not appear to have IFCN certification either. I retained these debunkings in the body of the article as it is relevant to the reception that OpIndia articles receive. This comes into play when the edit-warring trolls revert obvious encyclopedic improvement to push an agenda.Pectore^talk 04:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pectore, the citations provided before your desired version included Newslaundry, BBC News, Dawn, AltNews and BOOM. You have removed 4 out of the 5. For instance, your own citations here contrasts BOOM with AltNews and OpIndia as the non-partisan fact checker of the three. You have only retained AltNews and given undue weightage to OpIndia with the resultant interpretation being just two parties accusing each other. OpIndia's right wing bias is also not something that they hide as we can see from its own sources, they market themselves as being right wing and is to an extent promotional in nature. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Regardlessly, the fact is you're engaged in a discussion. You have disregarded any other editor and edited the article in accordance with your wishes before a consensus has been reached. In the process you have removed citations from reliable sources and completely reworded the article. Not to mention you're calling me a troll and accusing me of "pushing an agenda" which is a violation of both WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. Perhaps this is projection. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Pinging Winged Blades of Godric since you seem to be the major contributor to the article, beforehand. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Why have you edited the article?" is a peculiar question to ask, when Wikipedia encourages bold editing. Furthermore, your chronology and assessment of the discussion is incorrect. I made edits on the 27th [1] and then made a note on the talk page a few hours later on the 28th to respond to an anon concern [2]. I am not required to edit the talk page, I did so in the spirit of discussion. You reverted about a day after my edits and 11 hours after I made the post on talk, citing "ongoing discussion", which was related to the anon concern above and not even to my edits. Also you did not join the discussion until you were about to hit 3RR and then go misrepresent the situation and slander me to some admin.

Regarding the content, the right-wing argument is a non-sequitur. You make the clearly false claim that my version white-washes OpIndia's bias, and that is untrue. It is literally the first modifier in the lead, and cited again when describing both the organizations own view as well as the view of the IFCN. My view based on reading multiple sources is that OpIndia claim to fame is being a right-wing, self-styled fact-check site with large circulation against "the mainstream media".

Furthermore, no justification yet provided by anyone for the "fake news" tag in the previous lead, which is not only a huge violation of WP:UNDUE, it is Wikipedia taking an editorial stance on a news source. The article on The Wire (India) for instance puts the note that The Wire aided in the spread of misinformation only in the reception section. That was the biggest issue with the article previously

Your version added extreme undue weight to Newslaundry's coverage of some obscure "ideological seminar", terming another news site "fake news" (there we go with Wikipedia taking editorial stances again) based purely on NewsLaundry's own editorial stance.

Similar to the article on the Wire, I think the best solution is to collate in the Content and reception section by whom OpIndia has been accused of spreading fake news, but noting that OpIndia in turn accuses many of them of spreading disinformation themselves. It should include a discussion of IFCN result, as that is germane to their self-styling as a fact-checker.Pectore^talk 06:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

content in the article is reliably sourced. if you have issues, raise them separately an work towards a wP:CONSENSUS without a hostile and aggresive posture againt other editors here. see wP:TE ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Refrain from edit warring and participate in the discussion if you're so set on lecturing an established editor on Wikipolicy.Pectore^talk 07:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pectore, I am just letting you know, before you find yourself topic banned for WP:TE, good luck. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Harassment and edit warring is considered WP:TE as well. You've contributed exactly nothing to the discussion here so far regarding the content.Pectore^talk 07:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been as polite with you as possible, I've only brought up guidelines which you have broken and potentially behaved in a certain manner. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm responding to DBigXray.Pectore^talk 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Pectore, please get wP:CONSENSUS for your edits and stop edit warring. AS I see it, your edits are WP:POV redactions. Please explain your edits in separate sections below. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 05:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you read above and stop edit warring.Pectore^talk 07:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pectore, Stop editing the article without generating WP:CONSENSUS first. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop harassing me and edit warring.Pectore^talk 07:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• This has veered into more-noise-than-signal territory. If anybody can put forward a concise list of coherent objections, I will respond to them. OpIndia is a fake news website and there's no denying this over here; see lead of InfoWars for comparison.∯WBG^converse 09:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Having the appellation "fake news" in the lead has no consensus and treating it as similar to InfoWars has no justification. AltNews, The Wire, Newslaundry have also been caught publishing fake news. Whether they have published "fake news" belongs in the reception section of the article. Furthermore, given that reliable sources have treated AltNews and OpIndia with some equivalency means that OpIndia's responses to AltNews need to have a place in the article. Then, relying heavily on Newslaundry (which is itself not a certified Fact checking service) for the meat of the article violates guidelines on undue weight and goes into the territory of editorializing. Pinging Shubham2019 who expressed similar concerns earlier.Pectore^talk 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The assertion put forth of AltNews and OpIndia as being equivalent is not much other than WP:OR. Other than from OpIndia itself, I do not see any allegations of fake news towards AltNews. Even your own provided source so much as says that AltNews has often qualified OpIndia as being a publisher of fake news, it does not even describe a partisan bias regarding AltNews. Newslaudry not being a part of IFCN is irrelevant, it is a news media and not a fact checking website, neither does it claim to be. Regardlessly, it's not like it is only these two media who have qualified OpIndia as a fake news portal. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:49, 2 March 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 , 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 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)

We are taking the narratives of Altnews, Boom and others as gospel-truth only because they are IFCN certified. If there is an IFCN certified fact-checker who rebuts these, feel free to list them. Still I have added OpIndia's responses. ∯WBG^converse 13:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think FactHunt is a reliable site, I couldn't find any secondary sources on it from my quick search at least and even if it were that'd only make AltNews seem reliable. This article also looks quite generous to OpIndia at this stage, it doesn't give wiki-voice to it being a fake news website which it was doing earlier. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are secondary sources backing Fact Hunt's claim also another source which is from none other than Newslaundary but quotes Prasar Bharti News Service( India's national broadcaster)

Shubham2019 (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't establish the reliability of FactHunt. Say, one can make a website and copy articles from Indian Express but that wouldn't make it reliable. In fact, Fact Hunt itself seems to not have qualified WSJ as spreading fake news just as Newslaundry and New Indian Express haven't. All of them have only reported the contradiction between what WSJ reported and the statement Ankur Sharma gave to the government broadcaster thereafter. This also is not relevant to this article. There is much more to OpIndia then one or two instances of misreporting, the sources regarding it directly qualify it as reporting whole fabricated stories not just details of them and on multiple occasions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:44, 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 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 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)

Media Bias/Fact Check is considered unreliable per WP:RS/P. From what I can see the IFCN assessor has assessed the website, has been provided access to its archives and not just select samples. Major corporations rely on its vetting process. As such it can be considered a reliable assessment. The premise of OpIndia on the other hand is substantiated by mainstream media sources alongside IFCN certified fact checkers such as Alt News and BOOM, and not just Alt News. Emotional appeals like "hard work" are redundant since WP:CENSOR. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:27, 4 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. Shubham2019 (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That I assume is a owner of a facebook page, not facebook the corporation. Social media isn't a reliable source for facts in almost any circumstance, they may at best be used to quote notable personalities or organisations if they have a verified account there. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:37, 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. Shubham2019 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You can take Alt News up for RfC if you want. It still is a very flimsy argument, its based on a mention of a relatively unknown site on an article of India Today. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Frankly, this critique of IFCN has merit on first glances. But we need some yardstick to ascertain reliability of fact-checkers springing up every alternate day over digital spheres, and I am seeing nothing better than IFCN. ∯WBG^converse 16:57, 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)

Just a disclaimer, FactHunt is only claiming it is so. They have not even linked their application to the IFCN in their article. The screenshot seems to be asking them to provide evidence for non-involvement with any advocacy or partisan groups. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:15, 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 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)

@Pectore: what do you think about the above conversation? Shubham2019 (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

FactHunt admitted that they were also rejected by IFCN in 2020 (in a diatribe). On that basis, FactHunt is also a questionable source. The Poynter Institute is a well-respected nonpartisan organization, and the IFCN examines many of the same factors that Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline requires of sources. The IFCN has a stellar track record with certifying reliable sources and rejecting unreliable sources, and its credibility is not "in question" because it rejected OpIndia and FactHunt. The rejections simply show that OpIndia and FactHunt are not reliable.

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

Neutrality template

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)

Newslinger, agreed. Their issue is with the real-world sources, not with the Wikipedia article represents them, and that's not our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 09:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

IFCN Rejection in the Lead Section

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

I'd agree with you that IFCN has not stated any fault in the fact checking methodologies which makes the lead inaccurate. That said, the application seems to be requesting OpIndia of disclosures related to methodologies, finances, etc to which with the end result being unsatisfactory for accreditation. Also to be noted is that OpIndia practically accuses the entire mainstream media of left wing bias especially including those who have reported it to have reported fake news. Hence, their word on the matter shouldn't matter unless substantiated by other independent and reliable sources which accuse the specific agencies of the same. The same applies to IFCN's India office, the only source Shubham had provided was another site similar to OpIndia which had a very clear conflict of interest having its own application rejected. There isn't much to suggest that an established and pretty much the only notable authority in the field of fact-checking to be unreliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

I didn't agree with the current wording in the article but I'm not the only one involved on this article. However it is important to state that they do not have accreditation from the IFCN as a fact checker. The lead is just supposed to be a summary of the article. A closer look at the application also shows that they have questioned the methodologies as well in terms of the evidence it uses. But primarily from what I gather if one were to summarize it, it is a result of unsatisfactory disclosures for a proper scrutiny to take place and ambiguity in their work which have been grounds for rejection. Page protection on wikipedia is not something new, controversial articles are likely to get page protected. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:44, 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)

Details of OpIndia's content need not be added in the lead as the nature of its content is adequately summarized in the first two lines. We can not verify if OpIndia's fact checks are accurate if they are not endorsed by the IFCN regardless of whether IFCN has explicitly stated that they aren't accurate. OpIndia itself claims to be a fact checking site (obviously) which has been mentioned. The article does not mention anywhere that its fact checking is inaccurate, it only says whatever is in that source that is its accreditation was rejected and that it claims to be a fact checking site. The line concerning fake news is not cited to IFCN but to other IFCN certified fact checkers as well as other mainstream media agencies. If you have reliable sources which state that all these citations are wrong or biased against OpIndia in some form, you are free to do so but assertions from OpIndia itself aren't worth much for reasons which should be obvious. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:52, 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)

AbidingLight, That's what we call original research, second-guessing a respected authority in order to get a result you like rather than the result it provides. Guy (help!) 08:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

For some reason my reply is being redirected here automatically. Search for Yogi Adityanath and OpIndia you'll find the article. For instance, if the governor of New York writes an article in a newspaper that proves the credibility of the newspaper. I can't site because OpIndia has been blocked (due to malicious campaign on Wikipedia) as a source. Shubham2019 (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Shubham2019, it proves neither its credibility nor its reliability. Guy (help!) 09:18, 18 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)

Daily Caller

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)

Absolutely. My edit summary was referring to this quote from Nupur J Sharma, which was published in "Can fact-checking emerge as big and viable business?" by The Economic Times:

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’.

Since that is Sharma's opinion, we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that outlets with "declared ideological leanings" are accepted as fact-checkers in the US. I doubt that Sharma's opinion would be considered due weight, since it has already been established that OpIndia is a questionable source. — Newslinger talk 01:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

On closer inspection, Sharma is most likely referring to Check Your Fact, which is both IFCN-certified and operated by The Daily Caller. However, Check Your Fact does not claim to have "declared ideological leanings". Instead, it claims in the IFCN assessment:

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.

In contrast, OpIndia admits that it is "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)

@Newslinger: the 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) 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that "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)

Respected co-editors who also canvass for leftist media organization should be called out. Wikipedia has problems of corruption and bias says none other than the co-founder himself. Corruption and bigotry should have no place in wikipedia, still it's prevalent. Senior Writers take money from PR firms/organisations to maintain pages. I don't understand the obsession of leftist writers on wikipedia with opIndia. This page views on wikipedia is less than what they get within hours of their one article. Although i would prefer an honest and fair wikipedia i think no matter how much OpIndia is attacked it won't matter much in the real life. The identity of news reporters is public, columnists is public why do wikipedia editors need anonymity if we are honest and confident of their work? All the websites which cover Leftist media portals when they spread fake news have been labelled as unreliable. Wikipedia should realise it is not the guardian of people's ideology. The more propaganda gets on wikipedia the less reliable it becomes. Opindia itself has called out these fake news portals but can't site those right. Shubham2019 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is a staggering exercise in whataboutism, and it also lacks reliable sources. Regarding pageviews, do you have a conflict of interest you would like to disclose? If you don't think anonymity is necessary for Wikipedia editors, feel free to set an example by revealing your own identity. — Newslinger talk 10:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this a coordinated Hit Job on Opindia?

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 concern 1. 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 context 2. 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 asEveripedia. 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 (7a) wikipedia policy to support your logic, (7b) cite a counter policy to 7a - to avoid "master manipulator" wikilawyering, and (7c) then cite a counter-counter policy to support the 7a. For each policy cited, cite the specific para and passage so that your logic could be scrutinized in point by point manner. This will ensure that the master manipulator admins/editors do not have any unfair advantage over the less experienced editors in unfairly shutting them up. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Summary of corrective actions needed 8. Take these corrective actions, last one is easiest, immediately start with that. 8.1. Please reverse the hit job (unban India as source and edit Opindia article in unbiased non-grudging manner), 8.2. isolate and disempower the COI stakeholders, 8.3. demolish cartelized wolves packing order, 8.4. remove Prashant Bhat's primary source content (in worst case, at least condense it to just one sentence). 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) I have referred this discussion to the conflict of interest noticeboard at WP:COIN § OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 12:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Right or far-right?

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. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 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. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

In either case, reliable sources will have to be cited. For the matter of being called a fake news site, The Wire, Alt News or Boom cites don't explicitly call it a fake news site. The BBC document however does do so, so I suppose a case can be made for that. The Newslaundry and DAWN articles more or less state that the spread of fake news is deliberate in nature. Despite it, I think a few more citations which call it a fake news site unambiguously would be necessary before such a change considering the controversy surrounding it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

So I found this source explicitly calling it a fake news factory here, but it seems to be a WordPress-hosted site. It’s such a shame we can’t apply definitions on Wikipedia to decide if something is a fake news site like I suggested, but I guess it's for the better. And by the way, ignore the "right vs far right" claim. Even though it is obvious, no RS has called OI a far-right site. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 14:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tayi Arajakate here. The sourcing is not quite there yet for either change. For comparison, the article on Breitbart News does not use the term fake news website, while the article on InfoWars does. As for right-wing vs. far-right, the discussions at Talk:One America News Network and Talk:Breitbart News § Should remove far right label are relevant and may be useful. — Newslinger talk 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: The article is almost entirely critical of the news site with no due weight given.

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)

The University of Michigan report, published by Taylor & Francis, is the most detailed source on the article subject by far, with over a dozen pages of information-dense literature that focus specifically on OpIndia's content. In contrast, many of the other cited sources in this article provide much shorter coverage of OpIndia, but they are still incorporated into the article. So far, no editor has been able to locate coverage from reliable sources that are favorable of OpIndia, beyond the ones cited here. WP:NPOV refers to "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", and since most of the sources cover OpIndia negatively, the article is also critical of OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the Taylor & Francis report is very reliable, but my point (Which I was about to bring up but there was an edit conflict with your reply) was that the Section in question does not empirically describe their format and nature of content (An example of which would be stating what they write), but it instead is a summary of the study. Another thing is that the description is specifically focused on OpIndia's claim of being a fact checker and IFCN's dispute of the same, even though fact-checking is in the minority of what they do, which makes it unduely unfavourable to OpIndia. Thirdly, the sub-section about the Bihar Case is factually incorrect (I may start a dispute on that). In the original article OpIndia reports on what the victim's father says and does not directly assert anything about any community or police. LΞVIXIUS💬 15:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Article content is supposed to summarize the content in reliable sources. OpIndia has described itself as a fact checker in many of its interviews, and OpIndia's IFCN rejection was specifically discussed in The Economic Times. The section on the Bihar human sacrifice claims is entirely consistent with the cited sources. As noted, OpIndia altered its content in response to negative feedback. — Newslinger talk 16:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger is entirely correct; WP:DUE is about balancing what the sources say, and not what editors think ought to be in the article based on personal preference. Any claim that this violates NPOV needs to show how the article does not reflect independent reliable sources, otherwise it holds no water. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The article summaries completely gloss over absolving statements from the news articles they cite. The Economic Times article says that the official IFCN assessment states that OPIndia 'concentrated on certain political organisation(s) with a certain ideology,' a piece of information who's absence, especially after the fake news statement, makes it seem like they were rejected because of these aforementioned fake news, it also fails to describe OPIndia's statement in defence.
Secondly, The claims were made while quoting the father of the deceased boy, something which is mentioned in the cited articles (1) (2), but not on the Wikipedia article. LΞVIXIUS💬 03:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The article currently states "While noting partial compliance on a number of categories, the IFCN rejected the application on grounds of political partisanship and lack of transparency, and raised concerns over questionable fact-checking methodologies", citing the IFCN evaluation. The text is consistent with both the IFCN evaluation and your "...certain ideology" quote, which is covered with the words "political partisanship". Here is the paragraph from the IFCN evaluation that includes the "...certain ideology" quote:

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.

On the human sacrifice claims, the Newslaundry article states:

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?

Considering the contents of the audio clip, it's clear that the "all Muslims" claim originated from OpIndia, and not Rohit Jaiswal's father (Rajesh Jaiswal). — Newslinger talk 04:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

175.45.149.63 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It is the most trusted media in India as of 2020

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This description is highly biased

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)

Thank you; see WP:RS and WP:OR. ∯WBG^converse 13:21, 17 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)

See above reply. ∯WBG^converse 13:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

4th source doesn't have any connection to OpIndia. Shubham2019 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Which source? ∯WBG^converse 13:21, 17 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)

Thanks; link repaired. ∯WBG^converse 13:21, 17 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)

Pakistan owned ? ∯WBG^converse 13:21, 17 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)

Lol.∯WBG^converse 13:21, 17 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)

The article is based solely on reliable sources, and your description of me is a personal attack. — Newslinger talk 07:46, 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)

All of the content in this article is verifiable to reliable sources. OpIndia was rejected by the IFCN in 2019 and the Wikipedia community classified it as a generally unreliable source in March of this year. Your use of a dog whistle slogan (Jai Sri Ram) on this talk page is completely inappropriate. — Newslinger talk 05:13, 6 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)

OpIndia's claims regarding these other sites make no difference to Wikipedia, since OpIndia was determined to be an unreliable source in a noticeboard discussion from March. — Newslinger talk 05:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia management has to open its eyes!

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)

Wikipedia's policy on neutrality states that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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 article is neutral because it is entirely based on a comprehensive set of reliable sources and entirely consistent with the cited reliable sources. OpIndia has been considered a generally unreliable source after a noticeboard discussion in March, but this article still includes statements from OpIndia's representatives when they are published by reliable sources and constitute due weight. Finally, article content is written by editors, not "management". — Newslinger talk 05:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

To sum up, neutrality doesn’t mean saying "This site is known for spreading fake news, but is still *insert praises*". It means writing what reliable news sites and scholars say, while ensuring there is nothing that sounds like supporting one side over another. In this case, reliable news is mostly negative mainly because OI repeatedly spreads fake news. And by the way, Electranumera, not trying to offend anyone, but are you connected to OpIndia in any way? Your only edit has been to defend the website, and your writing style imitates the "journalists" working for the site (I assume you will be notified of your being mentioned)... RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Newslaundry article: "OpIndia: Hate speech, vanishing advertisers, and an undisclosed BJP connection"

[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)

 Added. I'll work on the Stop Funding Hate article later. ​— Newslinger talk 08:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

Opindia is NOT Right Wing because your refernces show nothing give refernce or remove the word Anna4525 (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the FAQs at the top at this page. TheImaCow (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia is a hate-mongering organization

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)

Hi there, do you have any reliable sources for this information? If not, we're not able to use it for the article, since Wikipedia does not allow original research. — Newslinger talk 06:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Attacks on Wikipedia

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)

I understand the situation that OpIndia are seeking attention and making use of the criticism faced by Wikipedia to their own favour. They covered the news regarding the recent controversy emerged in Scots Wikipedia and now OpIndia has also covered an issue regarding the removal of section by an editor which was about relating to the online petition demanding PornHub to remove child rape videos. It showcases that OpIndia always wanted to post news regarding the negativity of Wikipedia. They failed to acknowledge the fact that Wikipedia had managed to cover the controversy in Cuties article which emerged after the promotional poster release of Cuties that was updated here by the editors within hours. Abishe (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim commentary

@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

"Fake news, lies, Muslim bashing, and Ravish Kumar: Inside OpIndia's harrowing world" from Newslaundry: "A former OpIndia employee, who resigned because he felt the blog was spreading hatred against Muslims, said, 'If the accused in an incident belongs to the Muslim community, then you have to mention his name in the heading. The news is to be published in such a way that if the reader is a Hindu, then he starts developing hatred for Muslims.'" "From November 15 to 29, OpIndia Hindi put up 28 posts that identified a Muslim in the headline, irrespective of the nature of the crime they were accused of, whether it was theft, rape, murder, or hooliganism." "The Muslim community is the favourite punching bag of OpIndia. Consider the rape and murder of the Hyderabad doctor. The country was still recovering from the shock of the barbarity when OpIndia decided to communalise the crime. 'Mohammad Pasha had planned the rape and murder of Disha and burnt the body, police claim,' the blog's headline screamed." "OpIndia: Hate speech, vanishing advertisers, and an undisclosed BJP connection" from Newslaundry: "...OpIndia adds dollops of incendiary false news and religious incitement, primarily targeting Muslims." "Newslaundry had fact-checked the story from the ground and found it to be false. In fact, OpIndia's misinformation streak in the immediate aftermath of the communal carnage in Delhi arguably amounted to criminal incitement against Muslims." "Six years down the line, OpIndia has morphed from a 'media commentary' blog tilting towards the governing BJP into a website promoting and defending Hindu supremacy and chauvinism, and a vibrant source of misinformation targeting Muslims, liberals, leftists, 'the establishment', and critics and political opponents of the BJP."

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:

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
"MUBI, other brands drop advertisements from OpIndia following ‘Stop Funding Hate’ campaign" from Scroll.in "OpIndia Loses Ads After UK-Based ‘Stop Funding Hate’ Campaign" from The Quint "OpIndia: Hate speech, vanishing advertisers, and an undisclosed BJP connection" from Newslaundry

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 15:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he can, because from what I can see that content is sourced pretty well. However, what's with the cites to groups of other citations? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 01:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jéské Couriano, I tend to bundle clusters of four or more citations using the {{tref}} {{refn}} template to prevent citation overkill. Four is the number recommended in WP:CITEKILL. These citation clusters are necessary because contentious claims need to cite multiple reliable sources to meet WP:REDFLAG. When certain words or phrases in the article had fewer citations immediately after them (or relied on citations at the end of the sentence), they were repeatedly removed. Having enough citations to reliable sources immediately after the disputed wording drastically reduces the frequency of removals. This is why these citation bundles are common on articles about subjects related to fringe/conspiracy theories or extremist content. There are other ways to bundle citations, but I prefer {{tref}} {{refn}} because it is easy to implement and allows all of the bundled citations to be reused within the article without duplication. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Fixed template name. — Newslinger talk 05:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. This is the first time I've actually looked at an article that used them to any degree. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 03:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Another way to bundle citations is through bullet points, as in Special:Permalink/977314386 § cite note-FarRight-6. Bullet points are easier to skim through, but if an editor wants to reuse some (but not all) of the references in the list, there would be duplication in the citations. — Newslinger talk 05:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit 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)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

[ Trolling deleted ]

[ Trolling deleted ]

It's well documented in the article and several sources that they have published anti-Islamic screed. It's even in the lead.Praxidicae (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

[ Trolling deleted ]

Read the sources. This has already been discussed ad nauseum. Praxidicae (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

[ Trolling deleted ]

I believe you're looking for YouTube comments to troll, this isn't a general forum for griefing. Do you have a source to support your statements? Praxidicae (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

[ Trolling deleted ]

Plagiarism incident

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)

 Done. I have already add this in "Content" section. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality?

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)‎

Jenos450, please sing your comment with four tildes (~~~~). It is well documented and written with a neutral point of view. I don't see any issue with its neutrality. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "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". The article (including the lead section) is reliably and extensively sourced, including with high-quality academic sources. Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe OpIndia in negative terms, so this article does as well. See the InfoWars article for comparison; OpIndia's reputation is similar to that of InfoWars. It would be non-neutral to whitewash OpIndia's history to improve its appearance. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This article could use some rephrasing. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is a reflection of the available reliable secondary sources. OpIndia is welcome to improve its content and its practices, which would make future secondary source coverage more positive. Whether OpIndia chooses to do so is its own decision, not ours. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but don't you think this article could use some proper introduction in a new format. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why this guys spreading fake news about good news media?

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)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. OpIndia is not a reliable source of information on Wikipedia and has a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

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)

 Not done Please clearly state the change you would like to see in the article (e.g., "change x to y") and please provide reliable sources.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is So Called Neutral Judgement

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)

The discussion above 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.

Fake news catagorization

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)

 Not done, the requested content is well-documented with summarized body. Please also refer to WP:NOTNP.

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)

Reliable sources confirm that OpIndia has repeatedly published fake news. See Special:Permalink/998624148 § cite note-Fake news-22 for details. — Newslinger talk 08:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Be neutral

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)

Wikieditor457, any editor, including IP users can edit and update pages with reliable entries. If you think the Quint, Scroll, NDTV or other pages have not been updated or lacks important information, please do so by providing reliable sources. As you know, this page is well-documented and nothing is unsourced. As far as i understand, there is nothing here that violates WP:NPOV. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Best not to feed the SPA troll. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Short description

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)

Vengeance 01, the FAQ above addresses this exact question. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:59, 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)

Vengeance 01, The short description is a part of the article and will reflect its content. With regards to the policy on neutral point of view, quoting from the FAQ.

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 _Talk 12:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@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)

Vengeance 01, you can customise your signature in the preference settings. (see Help:Preferences) Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vengeance 01, unfortunately, the mobile website for Wikipedia has fewer features than the desktop website, and some parts of Wikipedia are not visible on smartphones by default. This includes the FAQ boxes that are on the top of some talk pages. However, you can see the FAQ on the mobile website by going to Talk:OpIndia/FAQ and then tapping "Read as wiki page" at the bottom. You can also switch between the mobile and the desktop websites by going to the very bottom of any page on Wikipedia, and tapping either "Desktop" or "Mobile view". Also, for more information on customizing your Wikipedia signature, please see Wikipedia:Signatures. — Newslinger talk 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation integrity

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)

@Newslinger I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was the reason. I have quite poor memory and completely forgot about my edit 2 months ago, and just followed the policy engraved into my head about placing citations after punctuation. (If not already done so) Kindly undo my edit. Apologies for inconvenience. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Berrely. I agree that citations look better when positioned at the end of a sentence or after a comma, but this is a special case. Thanks for understanding. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Website URL

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)

I would advise leaving it as is. The main page often contains material that is libelous and thus illegal under US laws. --Guy Macon (talk)

I mean, all other pages in the Islamaphobia sidebox have their main URLs linked. I understand that the URL may be considered “illegal” but we still link to sites such as The Pirate Bay, 1337x and other sites that are considered “illegal” under US law. However I do understand the content may be a little bit to libellious (and certainly the history of socks vandalising this page doesn't help). — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The spam blacklist checks against the entire page content whenever saving an edit. Since OpIndia was added to the blacklist due to persistent usage as a source (even after being banned in RSP) by sockpuppets, the root URL can no longer be used on any page. Even if the page were saved with the blacklisted URL (assuming that we whitelist it for a few seconds), this page will then be uneditable since it will fail whenever a non-admin tries to save the page with the blacklisted URL, essentially making this page protected until the URL is removed. To get around this and still be able to link to the website, the about page was exclusively whitelisted. All OpIndia links are then banned, except for the about page. If we get the root URL unbanned, take it up on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. One thing is for sure: we cannot whitelist the root URL without whitelisting every other blocked URL. There is currently no way that can be done, especially with just regex. Chlod (say hi!) 19:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception Section

@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)

I have the December 2020 issue of The Caravan in front of me right now. Here are the relevant quotes from "How Wikipedia earned the ire of the Hindu Right", which is cited for the sentence in question:

• Page 75: The OpIndia article and the attention from Twitter did not deter [the editor] and the other editors working on the article about the Delhi riots from continuing their task.
• Page 76: The same day, OpIndia published a piece, written by its editor-in-chief, Nupur J Sharma, titled [...] Expanding on the Reddit post, the article exposed [the editor]'s real name, the college he had attended, and the city and organisation he worked in. [Refers to different article than the one described on page 75]
• Page 77: OpIndia's article doxing [the editor] was shared over thirty thousand times.
• Page 77: [The editor] deleted his nine-year-old Wikipedia account. He tried to delete as much of his online presence as possible. For a while, there was a perverse race to violate what little remained of his privacy. "I'm being told he's deleting all his posts. Here is one," Sharma tweeted, with a screenshot of a 2015 Facebook post.
• Page 78: The Wikipedia community takes doxing very seriously. OpIndia and other publications that had carried its investigation were added to the website's spam blacklist for "privacy concerns."

Please also see WP:PAYWALL, which allows the use of paywalled articles as citations. — Newslinger talk 04:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The citation very explicitly mentions it, it's in fact a primary focus of the article. Please do not remove citations and then claim verifiability issues in the manner that you did in Special:Diff/1019019893, it appears very disingenuous and is disruptive. If your issue is with the fact that the article is behind a paywall, you can always ask others to help you get access to relevant parts, there is no bar on the use of sources which are not freely accessible. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:32, 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)

Which part of the sentence are you trying to verify? — Newslinger talk 05:03, 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)

No problem. I just checked the OpIndia article, and I do see the editor's real name, college, employer, and city of employment. OpIndia published more than one article mentioning the editor, so the one described in The Caravan may be a different one than the one you're looking at. — Newslinger talk 05:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Pradsona (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Opindia is largely followed News Portal of India.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2021

2409:4064:2D0C:DC1B:ED75:9D2F:59DA:5BF6 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

9

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◎ | melecie | t 23:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Italics?

Should OpIndia be italicised as a news outlet? — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Berrely, I've done it, seems pretty standard looking at other similar articles. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding "Fake News Website" in first sentence

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 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda619 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The definition "Fake news websites (also referred to as hoax news websites) are Internet websites that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news—often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect." fits OpIndia perfectly. User:DontWannaDoThis^≠ 06:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for more sources to emerge that explicitly describe OpIndia as a "fake news website", which is a stronger claim than stating that OpIndia has published fake news. If you find additional sources that describe OpIndia in this way, please share them so that they can be incorporated into the article. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

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)

The lead section summarizes the article body. OpIndia's content is described in detail in the "Content" section, which is why it is also described in the lead section. — Newslinger talk 08:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Constantly targeted by Muslim activists and power hungry politicians as it raises atrocities against Hindus

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Newslinger talk 18:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No sources provided and whataboutism. X-Editor (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

FIRs

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

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)

 Not done: There are a dozen or so sources currently supporting the adjectives you want removed. Cannolis (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding the site URL to Infobox

I think the website's URL must be added to the Information Box Wpakxl (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wpakxl That isn't going to happen. Here is what we say about Opindia: Note the bit about legal risks, Opindia has tried to cause trouble for some of our editors in the past as the text says. I"ve seen this happening.

Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. OpIndia is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. OpIndia was rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network when it applied for accreditation in 2019. In the 2020 discussion, most editors expressed support for deprecating OpIndia. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated. OpIndia has directly attacked and doxed Wikipedia editors who edit India-related articles. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia may request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. See also: Swarajya.. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow alright, I didn't know that. I understand blacklisting their site, but at the same time there are plenty of other controversial sites that Wikipedia links out to in their information boxes. I am not trying to start a discussion or a fight, I just want to gain clarity as to what damage a simple URL linking to their site in the information box could do, which is already linked to at the bottom of the page. Wpakxl (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We already have a link as you say, no need for a second. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright Wpakxl (talk) 15:51, 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)

Caravan coverage

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

The term fake news should be edited Sharannukala27 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Keval J. Kumar

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

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)

Too bad that you subscribe to such a charade, but the portal itself is unapologetic about its trolling and politically-motivated hate speech and disinformation campaigns. They are a repeat offender (cf. [6] vs. [7]). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

OpIndia has explained it's position on this article

https://www.op india.com/2020/06/wikipedia-opindia-crusade-left-bias-wiki-editors-negative-all-you-need-to-know/

I am sharing it here to verify that moderators delete this comment or not. Anubhavklal (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It is proved that Wikipedia is biased because it does not allow me to save my comment if it contains the correct link. It says it is blacklisted and must be removed Anubhavklal (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think wiki is biased, and probably some sudo liberal idiot has created this page and requested page protection to project an incorrect image. Ankur12511 (talk) 09:23, 20 May 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)

One can see the words Wikipedia used for pages like Opindia (Fake, Right Wing etc) and The Wire(Indepent Journalism, award winning etc). Its not too hard for any sane person to find out that both news portals are biased and have political leanings but Wikipedia didnt use any negative words in Wikivoice for The Wire despite the fact that Wire caught red handed with its Meta/XCheck fiasco. BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add URL

Please add the URL of this site 2402:E280:230A:36:DC85:B20B:B3E5:A273 (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The URL is currently listed in the article's infobox. — Newslinger talk 11:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

A change in the first sentence of the article

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

"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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)