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)