Talk:OpIndia

Sources

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

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)

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)

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 exteme 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.