Talk:Republic TV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Do not make any changes without discussing here.

Due to random biased and self promoting editing, it is necessary to take consensus before editing and also to have this page secured (Bengalurumaga (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)).

I found it completely biased by whoever edited this page to call it a mouthpiece of NDA in the first sentence. This is completely false and I didn't see any other network such as Al Jazeera being called a mouthpiece of the Middle East. So this shouldn't be the case for Republic TV. Deleted those portions. --71.163.83.161 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree calling It the mouthpiece of NDA in the first sentence. This is completely false.42.111.129.135 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

@Winged Blades of Godric:, Scroll, opindia, thewire, thequint, the print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog, nationalherald and altnews etc. should not be considered reliable sources as all of them have either pro or anti-government biases. All of them are web based news sites with the main news consumers being social media users. Altnews is a private company managed by a team of people who claim to verify news by in-house Techniques and methodology... I find this questionable..moreover the neutrality of Altnews founder has been questioned for biases [http://www.opindia.com/2017/09/how-neutral-is-fake-news-buster-altnews/], [1], [ Thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

isn't this questionable? -->> [[http://www.opindia.com/2017/09/how-neutral-is-fake-news-buster-altnews/], [2] --Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. The reliability of a source depends on the context. If you think citing a particular source brings bias in a particular part of the article, state so. Breakfastisready (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Major Ownership Change: Rajeev Chandrashekhar is now a minority investor - new channel owner Republic Media Network will be an editor-controlled company going forward

This is as per this article in Business Standard. Arnab Goswami bought back shares from Chandrashekhar-controlled Asianet News, making the latter a minority investor. The controlling company earlier was ARG Outlier Asianet News - a venture of Arnab Goswami (ARG) and Chandrashekhar (Asianet). The new controlling company is Republic Media Network in which Asianet is a minority investor and editor-in-chief Goswami is the majority shareholder.

Detailed description of some of the edits made in the page owing to wiki rules

The content here has only been removed keeping in mind that criticism about a channel and views that several hold clearly find a place in the 'criticism' section and not in the first paragraph of the channel bio. The content that was recently written here by one of the page contributors was absent earlier and has no relevance even now. No matter what views(political or nationalistic) a channel, any news channel/its editor for that matter might hold, calling it using terms like 'Mouthpiece' of the ruling govt. in the very first paragraph is wrong. This has been supported by an 'opinion' news article. The same issue has earlier been discussed in the Talk section by other contributors here on why it shouln't be referred to as a Mouthpiece of any sort. Calling it a right wing channel is equally inappropriate too and the source supporting this is National herald(* which is not a reliable source for its own bias as discussed in Talk section). No news channel could be associated with either of the wings- left or right. Information regarding the 'right wing bias' of the channel-an opinion that several other media houses/people hold is already clearly written in the criticism section of this page.

The other edit I made was only an update in the Audience Share to week 42 figures which I think no one would have an issue with. HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

HarshithaHappyGoLucky, thanks for bringing this up. We should update what is reported in the WP:MAINSTREAM WP:RS. There are several sources supporting it. Also it seems the only hire right wing journos. see these links.

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/03/08/rajeev-chandrasekhar-says-hes-fighting-a-congress-media-conspir_a_21875286/

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/arnab-s-republic-hints-at-mainstreaming-right-wing-opinion-as-a-business-117012600235_1.html

Until we reach a WP:CONSENSUS to update the content, I would request you to continue the discussion here and not make these changes to the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, I am actively working on the article.

I will be thankful, if you can wait for a while and dump whatever sources that you land upon, over the t/p :-) ∯WBG^converse 11:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Np, I just hope that the final version will not be a whitewashed version, that will put up a smile, on the PR team of the channel. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, obviously not. <wink> By the way, the HuffPost link seems dead, can you re-vet? ∯WBG^converse 16:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The page was needing a good overhaul. Glad someone took it up. I have fixed the HuffPost link above. thanks for pointing.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, check out the current version :-) ∯WBG^converse 09:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

good work WBG. I have reviewed the changes and the article looks much better. Kautilya3 also appears to have gone through the article so you have another reviewer as well. Thank you for taking out the time to improve this article. I will keep a watch over this article. I have assessed it as C class now. If there is one improvement that I must point out then I would suggest that the lead can still be expanded to cover the (now expanded) article. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing bias and Rajeev Chandrasekhar as an investor

Rajeev was an independent legislator when he funded the channel, and Arnab Goswami decided to dilute his ownership when Rajeev joined the BJP. I think that this whole thing should be clarified in the article that Rajeev wasn't a BJP member when he provided the seed funding for the channel. As of now, Republic TV is majority owned by Goswami, who doesn't belong to any political party.

There are many other things in the article that have been added without citations. While I personally agree that Republic TV is a bit biased towards the right wing, it's not proper to air out one's personal opinions here. Find appropriate, quality citations that support the statement, and then add it to the article. I suggest that line should be deleted simply because it's unsupported. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Theintuitus, see WP:LEADCITE and then, Republic_TV#Critical_commentary. Rajeev was an independent legislator but already the vice-chairman of the National Democratic Alliance in Kerala; see Republic_TV#Funding. ∯WBG^converse 09:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Congress denial of access

What's BLPORG? Am hearing the acronym, for the first time. ∯WBG^converse 19:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Here’s WP:BLPGROUP. First thing, site is permanently not working. Even name of site is access denied. While forming controversial sections, we need coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. Newzlaundry is critique propaganda site. Their own site says that their CEO Abhinandan is trustee of trust established by Kejriwal. Please provide alternative sources for this section which is controversial and present site is dead. If you succeed then replace word ‘on the ground’ to ‘over allegation’. This is nothing more than political allegation. Regards, — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 23:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

BLPGROUP does not apply for companies.

Newslaundry has Madhu Trehan, one of the most acclaimed journalist turned media-critic, at its helm. The site has been referenced by otger mainstream RSs. As such, it's a RS in itself.

What do you read as political allegations? Allegations about INC? :::INC did not like Republic's covg. of them and chose to deny all sort of correspondence with the channel, apart from in PCs. I don't see how any of this is any controversial. ∯WBG^converse 03:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

fwiw, AFAIK, Abhinandan co-founded PCRF, with Kejriwal (back in 2006) when the latter was located miles away from politics, and remained in the BoT for a few many years (~2010). That's not a case of bias, given the dissociation happened way before Kejriwal entered politics. ∯WBG^converse 03:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why site is not accessible? Why it can't be opened? Will allegations remain like this?-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) I would note my opinion here that I agree with User:Winged Blades of Godric that this content is relevant to the article and it should stay. The objections by User:Harshil169 appear frivolous and unconvincing to me. User:Harshil169 if you want to rephrase the said content in any other way you are welcome to present it here on the talk page for us to review. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

DBig, I’m okay with content. But site is not opening for controversial claim. How it can be verified? That’s primary concern. All other things are trivial. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169, What site is not opening ? this ?--DBigXrayᗙ 07:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s opening now. Was not opening yday. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This article needs an extremely thorough re-write and cleanup

Preferably by people who don't have anything to do with India and don't have a real side to pick politically in the country. I went through the entire article and all the citations today, this article is a complete fucking mess. Websites that are literally opinionated blogs are being used as citations. Let me make this absolutely fucking clear: this is not your personal blog. Not directed at a specific person.

Websites like Scroll, PostCardNews, The Wire, The Quint, National Herald, NewsLaundry and Altnews, et al are on the same standing in terms of quality and bias as OpIndia, Swarajya, Rightlog, DailyO, et al. If you can regard content by the first lot as content worth being cited on Wikipedia, you'll have to regard content by the other lot as useful as well. They're all the same in terms of journalistic standards, just biased towards one side or the other. These are basically blogs. Blogs of the sort you and I and others can start in ten minutes with a little money in domain name fees.

Same goes for individual commentators that have been billed as 'media critics' here - what's stopping me from taking a bunch of articles and tweets by another set of prominent people associated with the media, who seem to love Republic and see it as a feisty, independent channel that pulls no punches and goes after everybody? Not an opinion that I completely agree with, but I can make it happen.

I am not a fan of this channel at all, but I check my personal opinions at the door when I click on 'edit'. It's not that hard to do. This article is an extremely clear case of ideologically polarized, politically motivated editing. What's stopping a bunch of bhakts from barging in and working their own little magic on this article? They would ethically be on the same standing as you guys if they do that.

This should be looked at by editors that have nothing to do with India or Indian politics. Meanwhile, buck the fuck up, get your damn act together, and stop citing nonsense from blogs because you have an axe to grind with the channel. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I echo your thoughts. It’s written in opinionated way. Needs to be rewritten. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NPA. WP:RSN is that-way, if you wish to challenge the reliability of any source. Also, PostcardNews has not been cited, as has not, any tweet. OpIndia and Rightlog are currently deemed as unreliable, per RSN consensus.
  At any case, I can easily ping a few editors from entirely outside of ARBIPA but overwhelming chances are, it's not going to do much of anything -- sorta pings for uninvolved commentary, I receive about articles in USPOL.
  Truth has a left liberal bias, as well documented by scholars and to pretend otherwise, to clamor for a false neutrality, is to be naive. ∯WBG^converse 11:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Also, I will be very interested in accommodating positive coverage of the outlet, provided the sources does not fell afoul of WP:RS esp. WP:SPS. ∯WBG^converse 14:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Though I agree that Postcard, Dainik Bharat, OpIndia and Right log are propaganda portals which are not independent and their editorial process is shady to pass WP:NEWSORG. Postcard and Dainik Bharat are being ran by propagandists and dimwits. But Swarajya has fair editorial process, it has EAB, it files return, it doesn't support any political party though they have right-liberal bias. It has support of IPSMF. See their about us section. I don't think it will be wrong to use this magazine as source. Rest is dependent on consensus. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Fair points, which can be somewhat considered but what are you seeing over Swarajya about our subject except [swarajyamag.com/insta/republics-expose-of-lalu-on-day-one-shows-what-india-was-missing-for-months-journalism 1], [swarajyamag.com/business/why-the-independent-republic-of-arnab-goswami-is-under-attack 2] and [swarajyamag.com/insta/why-all-english-news-channels-should-send-a-thank-you-note-to-arnab-goswami 3]? ∯WBG^converse 15:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

My comment was general, not related to subject. Though, we should give due weightage to these opinions in Critical commentary. Your opinion?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Propose a line, please. ∯WBG^converse 15:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This "snapshot" looks good:

Goswami is taking up the right issues, issues that many others avoid, but he is not necessarily treating these topics with the gravitas and respect they reserve.

In the end, his larger than life personality on the TV screen may well end up tripping him as he tries too hard to live up to being Rambo, and the harbinger of over-the-top news.

attributed to R. Jagannathan [swarajyamag.com/business/why-the-independent-republic-of-arnab-goswami-is-under-attack 2]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL. We certainly agree! ∯WBG^converse 04:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Swarajya is not a reliable source. Kindly do not use it for anything here or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Too bad. I was so looking forward to seeing that "Rambo" thing up on Wikipedia! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I have already pointed out in above paragraph that it passes WP:NEWSORG. They have EAB, they are being funded by IPSMF which is reputed media trust, they don't allow user-generated or propaganda type of content like Postcard news or OPIndia, they don't support any political party, there is almost NO mention on RS noticeboard that they are not reliable. Winged too agreed with it. Now, please point out that where the reliability lacks? If there is any existing consensus then please provide link or open discussion about reliability. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Their EAB has Swapan Dasgupta, Jerry Rao, Surjit Bhalla, Manish Sabharwal. None of them is politician. If you’re going to pointing out fake news thing (which happened two or three times) then same thing happened with most of media houses which we considered as RS. Some sources are of course propaganda type (which I agreed) but some are of course not. You’ve provided judgement that it’s not reliable without giving any rebuttal that why it fails RS or NEWSORG. Isn’t it case of I just don’t like it?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Kautilya3: Can you share your opinions?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a case of I just don’t like it. Not commenting on anybody specific here, but the political climate is really messing with a lot of people, making them polarized. There's no real thinking going on anymore, people want shit that reinforces their opinions. Wikipedia hasn't been safe either - although it's better than conventional social media sites at least because there's an institutional element to Wikipedia. Harshil has a lot of valid points, I just looked into it myself and Swarajya seems like a legit source. The Hindu was caught up in propaganda as well when they deliberately scanned and published only a part of a Rafale-related document to create a certain public perception, and the whole document, unaltered, was then published by one of these "Modia" tv channels - should be ban The Hindu now? No. My point is that every publication and news channel has at least some bias. The Wire was the publication that after the Pulwama attack published a list of the victims along with their caste - it's obvious that they have certain interests and they will publish content that fits those interests. Frankly it makes way more sense to me to become a bit relaxed about the specific publication being cited and focus more on a) who wrote it and that specific person's credibility b) did the person really write it, verifiable with blue tick SM accounts of the person. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, pointing you at WP:RSN. Also WP:NEWSORG

I have not much of an idea about what all the entire Rafale controversy was about. I do not recall any article by The Wire about the caste of those slain in Pulwama but noticed one by Azaz over Caravan. It was an interesting read, covering how caste continues to manifest itself across a lot of scenarios and I did come across little outrage from anybody apart OpIndia, Swarajya and CRPF, itself. I don't know what nefarious interests can drive that type of reporting esp. that countless studies have been done across the globe, which show a positive correlation between socioeconomic deprivation and the footsoldiers of armed forces.

At any case, please confine your discussions to the subject, only. Meta-discussions ca be held elsewhere. ∯WBG^converse 12:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A completely opinionated article

The contributors have focused on article more like a tabloid journalist than like a researcher.The article can have opinion of the contributor which of course will always be the subject of concern.However the article barely provides any information about the news channel before jumping into opinions and citations.The least that can be expected out of this article much like any other is the information about the creation,however each section seems to be filled with opinions about BJP, Modi and the agenda. This is to remind the (Personal attack removed) author that this is wikipedia and not twitter where you can post your ideologies.Coming to refernces,most of them are blogs that in themselves raise questions about their own reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashu504 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Most of the cited sources in the article appear to be reliable sources. Feel free to point out anything that you believe is not verifiable. — Newslinger talk 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"right wing ecosystem"

Who apart from Rajeev Chandrasekhar funded the channel and how many of them qualify as "right-wing"? Chandrasekhar is by far the only guy among the investors listed in the outlook article that has clear ties to a right-wing political entity. Other major investors include Ranjan Ramdas Pai that Manipal Group guy, Dr. Ramakanta Panda, the heart surgeon and medical entrepreneur, Hemendra Kothari from DSP Investment and R. Naresh and Shobhana Ramachandhran of TVS Tyres. Who's the right-winger here apart from Chandrasekhar himself? Come on, let's get things right.

References

-Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Outlook®'s piece of "Churnalism" aside — if you're genuinely looking for it, shareholding-patterns of privately-owned business are hard to keep track of — specially with up-to-date filings. Nevermind the fact of governmental record-keeping in jurisdictions like India. But still.. Last time I checked, the top 2 stakeholders were: Ventures titled with the initials of "ArGo" and his spouse. Regards. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

propagating fake news

In the 2nd Paragraph, It is mentioned as 'The channel has been accused of practicing biased reporting in favor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and propagating fake news', But the source only says about the biased reporting of Republic TV and it doesn't supports 'propagating fake news' statement. Biased reporting and propagating fake news are different things. So, we should remove remove the statement, 'propagating fake news'? Divyam Seth (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation #3 is a collection of about 10 citations about the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving second para to reception section

The second paragraph in the introductory section doesn't belong where it is. I was about to move it to the reception section where it belongs but I felt it necessary to make my thoughts clear on the talk page and understand why this hasn't been done already before I went through with it. So anyone who feels the second paragraph belongs where it is kindly explain why. Debitpixie 💬 06:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Debitpixie, that won't do, since the WP:LEAD is a summary of what is in the main body of the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Says a lot about an article when its main content is just criticism and reception. Seems like the article could use some dedicated contributors. Either ways thanks for the clarification :) Debitpixie 💬 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A very opinionated article

It needs complete revamp. Opinions are expressed as facts and only from side. Ruchirgoyal (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please suggest any changes that you would like to see, backed by reliable sources. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph itself, you have mentioned "Critical reception has been negative. The channel has been accused of practicing biased reporting in favor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and of publishing fake news". This is all opinion without any proven facts. How is critical reception measured to be negative when it has highest viewership from beginning. Heavy terms like fake news is also making it completely opinionated.

Also it's mentioned that channel was primarily funded by Rajeev Chandrashekar whereas fact is that Arnab was the primary funder with 85% stake while Rajeev Chandrashekar had only a small minority stake in the beginning which he later sold to Arnab.

Inside, comments from The Wire and Newslaundary are taken as sources but those are not reliable sources but competing sources of the channel. Comments from competing forces can't be taken as reliable sources to write heavy words against the channel Ruchirgoyal (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

R TV CHANNEL

About this page , the views portayed by whoever has writtern this Artical is bias I am very neutral person and I follow India news very regularly and watching what happens around the case Congress party has put on this channel was not verdict as I can file wrong case to my opposition so my advice I always follow Wikipedia for information if like this article will portray lies than your reputation will be at stake, and people like me will run away from your portal.so before printing check the truth every coin has 2 side , currently I am following this news channel and I find his finding very legitimate, regarding the case file by Congress against him was total lies he ask question regarding murder of to innocent priest and three people file case against him and hatred him too much and suprim court has intervene them, every one are misusing their power Thank u MM MamaMasuma (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Alleged ratings manipulation

reference 90 and 91 not relate to matter. Writer in hurry to show maximum reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.45.37.122 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Problematic lead

The lead of this article in its current state has two issues. Firstly the following line is cited to an article which makes no mention of Republic TV, Goswami or Chandrasekhar being a legislator. These are however verifiable from cited material in the body of the article, what isn't verifiable is the claim that Chandrasekhar was a founder of BPL Mobile. Since the cited article is a feature on the BPL Group, it's likely included to support the mentioned claim. The article as such neither refers to BPL Mobile by name nor does it call Chandrasekhar a founder. It credits TPG Nambiar as the founder of the group and refers to Chandrasekhar as the one who developed the telecom industry of the group which isn't quite the same.

Chandrasekhar was the founder of BPL Mobile and an independent legislator from the National Democratic Alliance who later joined the Bharatiya Janata Party and Goswami was the former editor-in-chief of Times Now.

The second issue issue is the following line which is highly promotional, misuses a primary source and directly contradicts the article body in reference to Republic TV § Viewership ratings.

Republic TV also has the highest viewership among all English news channels of India.

@Goswami666:, can you explain why you've reinstated this content? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Citing BARC data in this way constitutes misuse of a primary source. WP:PRIMARY states, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." I've removed the claim in Special:Diff/981628140. I'm unsure about Chandrasekhar's role in BPL Mobile, but the cited Mint article does not explicitly name him as the founder. — Newslinger talk 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"Chandrasekhar was an independent legislator from the National Democratic Alliance who later joined the Bharatiya Janata Party" In future Rajeev Chandrasekhar moved to some other party do you mention the same? And reference 66 about fake news not found in aajtak wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.45.37.122 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

Change "Indian right-wing news channel" to "Indian news channel" in the opening sentence, because it is an "interpretation", the channel does not identify themselves as right-wing, this is equal to writing opinion as fact, which is a serious violation of core policy WP:NPOV. 2409:4073:2E97:3864:D81E:1E2D:6849:BBE9 (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done; moved it under Critical commentary. -ink&fables «talk» 13:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The citation was an academic publication published by Routledge, not an opinion piece. The "right-wing" descriptor should be restored to the lead section. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the descriptor in the lead, it doesn't matter if the channel doesn't identify itself as right wing as long as there are reliable secondary sources which identify it as such. Neutral point of view would apply if there were other equivalent sources which explicitly contested this description. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger: It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it is interpretation. Indian news channel is a fact, but Indian right-wing news channel is an analysis, analysis does not belong in the opening sentence. It is opinion stating as fact. Tayi Arajakate, when the channel does not identify so, then there's a dispute and you are clearly taking a side, that itself is non-neutral, not to mention it is interpretation from secondary source you are stating as fact. Even when including in a Reception section these things should be clearly attributed to that source, it should not be generalised, that is against NPOV. 2409:4073:E:5202:DE1:AF32:406E:77DF (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Routledge publications are peer-reviewed and have the same standards as any non-predatory academic journal. Republic TV's own self description doesn't cause a dispute and is irrelevant, it is a non independent primary source. The former is a high quality secondary source which need not be attributed unless there is a dispute from other similar sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Right-wing" has a well-defined meaning in the context of political science, and the Routledge source is a peer-reviewed publication on political science and media studies. We rely on secondary reliable sources for descriptions. — Newslinger talk 22:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Republic TV is a free-to-air Indian Nationalistic news channel launched in May 2017. It was co-founded by Arnab Goswami and Rajeev Chandrasekhar, before the latter relinquished his stake in May 2019, leaving Goswami the majority stakeholder.[3] Chandrasekhar was an independent legislator from the National Democratic Alliance who later joined the Bharatiya Janata Party and Goswami was the former editor-in-chief of Times Now. The venture was funded primarily by Chandrashekhar through his company Asianet News. Saravana jm (talk) 14:05, 11 November 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. -ink&fables «talk» 15:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove ‘Right-wing’ from lead

Republic TV is in no way right wing. They may be pro-government, but no one calls other channels left-wing for criticising government. The channel never identified themselves as right-wing, therefore it is political incorrect to call them so. ChandlerMinh (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a right wing propaganda channel

It is BJP propaganda channel at the best as per current scenario RashmikantT (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Add "Fake news channel" in first sentence

Republic TV is InfoWars TV channel of India but bigger in scale, one of the worst of Godi media, their extensive fake news reports and tactics are well documented and sourced, "Fake news channel" in first sentence should be added . Panda619 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide sources, thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What ?, did you even read the article, anyway here source. Panda619 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Regarding recent edits

I have added "Indian Right Wing". so why did you reverted my edit now, @Tayi Arajakate:. please wait until discussion with TrangaBellam is completed. I request TrangaBellam to discuss it here, my vote is for its removal as it clearly violated WP:CRIT as well as WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV. SonalMehta06 (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Because your edit removes the multitude of in-line citations (including academic publications) for those descriptors while preserving the descriptors themselves, which doesn't make any sense. Note that the neutral point of view policy does not state that there should be no critical coverage in articles, it 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 specific opinion of a subject, the article will most likely reflect them. If you have any other reliable source(s) which contradicts the description, please present them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

SonalMehta06, WP:CRIT is an essay, which might only represent minority viewpoints. You need to clearly demonstrate how NPOV (or UNDUE) is not met. A majority of reliable sources mention Republic TV to be an RW channel; so de we. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

While your edits to change the name after the move is quite normal, I am stunningly surprised to see your removal of the right-wing with a bunch of references. On AGF I would like to think of it as an unintentional removal, but it is too far stretched to consider unintentional. Also, please read about WP:COI — DaxServer (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Where can I see the sock-master? They are gen. accessible from the linked SPI in the block template. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The sock master is named in the tag placed on the userpage of blocked socks. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Republic World → Republic TV – The page was recently unilaterally moved from Republic TV to Republic World without any discussion under the justification that the latter name is the WP:COMMONNAME. This does not appear to be true in the slightest, almost all the references in the article use the name "Republic TV" and do not even mention "Republic World". I'm posting this move request so that we can get a structured discussion on which name should be used. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Current title is WP:COMMONNAME. SonalMehta06 (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Have you read the policy that you are citing? I'll quote the relevant part from it, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate: ofcourse i have read, that is the reason i am only one here who is providing facts, not just statements. SonalMehta06 (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reverse - No evidence has been provided in favor that the move was justified.TrangaBellam (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @TrangaBellam: "Republic World" with quotes have 3,770,000 results on google whereas "Republic TV" with quotes have only 1,770,000 results, so please provide some facts to support your argument. SonalMehta06 (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• The common name is determined by prevalence in independent and reliable English-language sources, not google results. Since the channel web address is "republicworld.com", it isn't surprising that it would end up with google hits for every article they published but none of those would be independent of the channel itself. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reverse: The sources cited in the article prevalently refer to the entity as Republic TV and not World — DaxServer (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Update: The original mover SonalMehta06 is blocked as a confirmed sock. I think this can now qualify for a speedy move? — DaxServer (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, I suppose. Pinging, Anthony Appleyard. Could you undo the move since it doesn't seem to have any support from a non block evading user? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Tayi Arajakate: Do you want it to be at Republic World or at Republic TV? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Republic TV should be the page name. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, I see you moved Republic Bharat back to Republic Bharat TV (which imo was a constructive one so I hadn't mentioned it) while I had requested a move of this article to Republic TV. Sorry if I'm being confusing here, should I just post it at technical requests? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh nevermind, Dax requested you to do that (and a couple others, I wasn't aware of). So it's just Republic World -> Republic TV, at this moment. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:37, 18 October 2021 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Republic TV was fined £20,000 by Ofcom and its flagship show "Poochta Hai Bharat" is banned in the UK. Amit8081 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Amit8081 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

References