Talk:Firstpost - Wikiwand

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firstpost article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 July 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

India: Politics / Television Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian television (assessed as Mid-importance).

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Chaudhry, Lakshmi. "Can the digital revolution save Indian journalism?". Columbia Journalism Review.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Contested deletion

Move

Please delete this Article (FirstPost)

Request to delete the 'FirstPost' article as soon as possible

"Tech2" listed at Redirects for discussion

Add info about new prominent shows

Misinformation sentence in lead

@Abhishek0831996 @Editorkamran Please explain why It posted misinformation on multiple occasions.^[1]^[2] is WP:DUE in lead. WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for it, and also read WP:BRD. Please do not engage in WP:SYNTH. I'll revert Editorkamran's revert.

References

[1]
Chatterjee, Swasti (2020-06-03). "News18, Firstpost Tweet Old Video Of Waterspout As Cyclone Nisarga | BOOM". www.boomlive.in. Retrieved 2023-07-11.
[2]
"Media misreport: Viral photo of grave with iron grille is from Hyderabad, not Pakistan". Alt News. 30 April 2023.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

About three sources have been provided that confirm Firstpost spread misinformation. Then there is Caravan, Scroll already mentioned on the section saying that Firstpost is serving as a mouthpiece of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP).

It would be better if you don't remove the sentence "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions" from the lead. Firstpost is no different than OpIndia, and Swarajya (magazine). Editorkamran (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The three sources, the two above and TheQuint - Varma, Aishwarya (2023-04-18). "News Organisations Falsely Claim Atiq Ahmed's Vote 'Saved' the UPA Govt in 2008". TheQuint. Retrieved 2023-07-12. - report on that misinfo coverage. I don't see a general trend of coverage of misinfo or other RS concluding the same that it becomes WP:DUE to go into lead.

How is mouthpiece of BJP converting into posting misinfo? Please stop WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in general. You've been warned — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 05:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes that warning was display of your own WP:CIR. You are better off without showing it.

Three reliable sources are more than enough for concluding the fact that "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions". Read WP:SYNTHNOT and read the lead of many other articles such as InfoWars, OpIndia and Swarajya (magazine). They were edited by others in the same manner as this article's lead was, i.e. adding that the outlet has spread misinformation on multiple occasions and adding sources to mention those 'multiple' incidents. You are not supposed to set new rules on your own.

I mentioned Firstpost being a mouthpiece of BJP because it tells about its credibility and nullifies your unnecessary attempts to remove a well-sourced sentence. Editorkamran (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I see 3 reports, which is already sourced in the body which I wasn't objecting. One of them was retracted with a clarification. I believe the sentence in the lead is rather WP:UNDUE absent any further sources that talk about it's misinfo reporting. BJP mouthpiece still need sourcing, altho something could be expanded from The Caravan and Scroll. Please spend the time in finding the sources, not on ad hominem at me — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, who is saying that Firstpost should be called a mouthpiece on the article? It is a fact that Firstpost is a mouthpiece of BJP. I am calling it a 'mouthpiece' as a part of this discussion only.

More sources that have caught Firstpost spreading fake news. The sentence "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions" is completely justified. Editorkamran (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please bring those sources!? — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 11:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction: For some reason, the mobile app didn't render the links and thus I thought you haven't provided any sources — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've restored it. I'd add The Hindu citation as well later. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

sigh

This article has been vandalised

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

Regarding the misinformation line

Misinformation showing the media house in bad light

3 errors in tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands?) of pieces ... merits LEADING OFF with "has misinformation" ?

Edit request

Misinformation

@Koshuri Sultan: This was added recently to the lede by you. Appears to be the second time you have been challenged over this and you need to discuss and gain consensus for this per WP:BRD. The sources cited are a disparate bunch which show instances of misleading/false news items but do not state that the outlet is a consistent promoter of these nor that there is a pattern as such, and none characterize the outlet at all beyond these instances. You are going to need much better sources than these to insert this into the lede which implies that the outlet is unreliable. Instances of controversies for RS abound: Criticism of the BBC, Al Jazeera controversies, CNN controversies, MSNBC criticisms and controversies, List of The New York Times controversies; but see how we treat their ledes.

From what I remember from past WP:RSN discussions, the outlet is considered generally reliable (though bias has recently become apparent that does not affect its RS status). You should either bring better sources or go for a broader discussion at RSN. The sources at present do not simply pass WP:DUE for the lede. Even for the body where the sentence was duplicated from, I would say is WP:SYNTH. Gotitbro (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, we consider CNN, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, BBC and New York Times as reliable sources while FirstPost is an outright unreliable source. The sentence is not SYNTH as it only summarizes the prolonged history of FirstPost spreading fake news. Koshuri ^(あ!) 07:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Koshuri Sultan: Firstpost has been discussed at WP:RSN and is considered RS for India-related articles, that it is unreliable is your WP:OR assertion. Take it to RSN if you want to overturn past consensus/discussions and want a listing at WP:RSP.

Bring sources which clearly/outright state that the source is unreliable or has consistently published misinfo/fake news. Fact checkers which list individual instances of it, cannot be WP:SYNTHesized as showing an apparent pattern and then used to impinge on the source's reliability. RS are not unknown to publish misinfo at times (as clearly shown above) that does not make them unreliable nor can we use these instances to characterize them as unreliable. Gotitbro (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Show the discussion where it was called reliable. It is an unreliable source and your whitewashing will not change that.

Summarizing the content from body on lead is not WP:SYNTH. Same thing has been also done for other pages such as OpIndia. Koshuri ^(あ!) 07:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Firstpost is clearly listed as a generally reliable at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Clearly passed AfD similarly (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firstpost), the last dicussion at RSN while expressing caution for political topics did not label the source as unreliable. WP:OPINDIA (also interestingly enough cited by initial sock to make the same assertion) is a deprecated and blacklisted source at enwiki and has enough independent coverage to justify that. Comparing these two is simply unjustified. Start a renewed discussion at WP:RSN if you want. Gotitbro (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It is absurd to cite WP:ICTFSOURCES because this discussion has nothing to do with Indian films. It has to do with the unreliable source FirstPost itself which is listed on WP:RSP as one of the publishers of undeclared paid news. You are engaging in WP:RGW here thus you need consensus to show FirstPost is a reliable source.

FirstPost is an unreliable source. You are wasting time by disputing that. You can read recent reports: Koshuri ^(あ!) 08:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORGINDIA has everything to do with sponsored content and nothing to do with their general unreliablity. Again instances of false reports are not unique to this outlet (or any outlet for that matter). Bring sources which state the source is unreliable or consistently promotes misleading/fake/false etc. news in their own words. We are not going to use disparate instances of fact checking and then impute unreliability as a whole on the source. If that were the case, we would be using PolitiFact to list quite a few US-based RS as unreliable in wikivoice which of course we don't do. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I have listed the 2024 RSN discussion above, no determination of general unreliability was made there. Comments from uninvolved editors:

It's not quite as clear-cut for FirstPost, but with their usage of "Pakistani-occupied" rather than "disputed" or similar for the regions in question, I'm not sure if I'd trust them as an objective source on Indo-Pakistani territorial disputes. In short, I wouldn't consider them reliable for this topic. ... FirstPost is at best weakly reliable, use with extreme caution due to sensationalism and pro-Modi bias. On this particular topic, one solution would be to say something like "media supportive of the Indian government"

So, yes as I stated above "the last dicussion at RSN while expressing caution for political topics did not label the source as unreliable".

Both the RSP and RS determination can be taken to RSN and I advice you to do that. Rather than try and overturn past discussion and consensus unilaterally (at this article). Gotitbro (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is good enough for establishing that FirstPost is an unreliable source, let alone comparing it with CNN, Al Jazeera, MSNBC and more contrary to what you are doing above.

Yes many reliable sources have published misinformation but they would retract them in a timely fashion. FirstPost is nothing like that. Koshuri ^(あ!) 08:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Cautionary sources are not unreliable, and regardless to restore the content that you seek to insert you would need sources to explicity state that. These of course have been brought forth neither by you nor Abhishek0831996. Gotitbro (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Your edit summary here is deceptive. I merely restored the sentence in May 2025 from an earlier version that was long standing version. More than 3 months have veen passed since, not "just a month ago". Koshuri ^(あ!) 07:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Koshuri Sultan: It was clearly removed after a discussion above and you restored without any resort to the Talk page. @ZeOmnipotent, Mykhal, and GraziePrego: Pinging those involved.

And I just realized this exact content was first added by the blocked sock Editorkamran which led to a discussion with DaxServer even back then. Gotitbro (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You are only proving my point that the content is staying for a long time, regardless of your highly selective WP: CANVASSING. Koshuri ^(あ!) 08:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith does not change the fact that the exact content you seek to include was originally added by a sock then removed after a discussion and then restored again by you. If pinging all past editors who were involved is "selective" might as well do away with the entire enwiki process. Gotitbro (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Odd that it is coming from you given you are removing sourced content, edit warring, and using misleading summaries. Just because an edit was made by a sock it doesn't means it has to be removed anyway. Koshuri ^(あ!) 08:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I will take anything added by chronic socks with a grain of salt. In this case the removal is entirely justified as a clear synthesis and from past discussion. Which simply cannot be ignored.

The edit summary was neither misleading nor incorrect. You restored sock content which was clearly removed after a discussion. Accusing editors of edit warring while repeatedly ignoring past discussions on the very same thing is dismissive. That the exact same content that was added by a sock is being restored is already of concern, that this was done for other socks as well raises further questions. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Then you are totally wrong because you are not allowed to use sock factor when the responsibility for the edit has been already taken by someone else. If you are seriously attributing all these edits to some sock then you are only causing more problems here.

Your edit summary is misleading since you claimed that the edit was made only 1 month ago when it is standing for a much longer period. Koshuri ^(あ!) 08:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

And Grazie's last edit resulted in the removal of that from the lede based on the latest discussion (after the one between Dax and the sock) on the very things that have been repeatedly been asserted ever since this was first inserted here. Others are simply vandal rvs. Since both of you are choosing to ignore the ultimate previous discussion which lead to the removal, I will have no choise but to take this to RSN or similar. Gotitbro (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see if there was any consensus to remove the information or it had been removed by GraziePrego. Mykhal apparently retracted their statement so it would mean that there was no consensus to remove the sentence. Koshuri ^(あ!) 09:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The removal was instituted here after the discussion, regardless of the general statement for want of reading a previous discussion by Mykhal, their points initially raised stand. Abhishek0831996 had made a self-rv based on this very discussion after initially rving Grazie [apparently has changed their mind now].

None of this addresses the substance of the dispute. I will wait for other editors to reply, if those are lacking a resort to RSN will have to be made.

PS: As someone who is t-banned from a closely related topic area, I would tread very carefully if I were you. Ignoring past discussions, ignoring sock concerns and restoring sock content already raise much concern. Gotitbro (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are saying that Abhishek made the removal based on that discussion (where he never participated) and the removal itself came more than a month later, then you are still not making any sense because Abhishek is the very person who made recent revert to restore content.

You have to read carefully given you are falsifying the past discussions after being called out for using misleading edit summaries and edit warring. Koshuri ^(あ!) 10:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

No discussion has been falsified here, a discussion was had and a removal was instituted. "About a month ago" was not meant to mislead but was merely a quick observation that the edit was recent. I accept that the time wasn't exact, the point that it was recently instituted by you despite past discussions and no intimation to previous editors on the Talk page stands.

Coming to editorial behaviour, users t-banned from Indian milhist articles who then add content closely related to it (insurgency, terrorism) and then engage in battleground behaviour around it should be very careful of where they stand. Gotitbro (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As confirmed from the timeline, you falsely claimed that the content remained only for a month when it was there for a longer period. It has been confirmed by Abhishek himself that you falsified the last discussion.

Read WP:FOC. If you dont want to discuss only content then you can simply drop the WP:STICK. Koshuri ^(あ!) 13:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion was had and lead to a removal, the discussion is right above and article history is viewable to anyone. If you so strongly believe anything has been 'falsified' take it to whatever forum you please [doubt any success would be had] but please do not make dubious allegations repeatedly.

Yes, focus on content would have been done were you not restoring sock content willy nilly everywhere despite already being under sanctions. I would strongly suggest you take your time away from contentious topics. Gotitbro (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion you are pointing to ends with editors showing their support for keeping the statement in the lead. You are engaging in WP:HOAX, by falsifying the consensus of the discussion. Also, Gotitbro, let's not stoop as low as WP:PERSONALATTACKS. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Where was the support to keep the statement in the lede at Talk:Firstpost#This article has been vandalised? As I note the discussion was followed by a removal, nothing has been fasified. Completely baseless allegations of something as serious hoaxing, take it to ANI if you are that sure.

You should read up on policies before blindly citing them, highlighting problematic editorial behaviour can in no circumstance be considered PA. Gotitbro (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Firstpost#Misinformation sentence in lead formulated the consensus that the information should remain in the article. The discussion you are pointing to was clearly stale, with months between comments, and it got minimal engagement by editors. A broader discussion would have been needed for consensus to be overriden. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Obviously I would point to the latest discussion which lead to current state of affairs and not an older between only two editors one of whom was a bad faith sock. Gotitbro (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

What you are talking about is ridiculous. The discussion you are pointing to literally ends with the editors acknowledging that a discussion had already taken place, as it did to the one I pointed out, and following the consensus of that. The "latest discussion" you speak of was not meant to be for consensus building. The earlier one was and that's the one whose consensus we had been following before you barged in and tried to unilaterally change consensus to fit your views. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Your personal picking of which discussions count as consensus building has no bearing on the fact that a proper last discussion lead to a removal. That you want to rely on a discussion with the principal participation of a sock is farcicle to then double down with bizarre aspersions of "fit your views" and unfounded allegations of "unilaterally change consensus", I would gravely suggest you desist. Gotitbro (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Gotitbro you are wikilawyering at this stage. I don't see any sense in creating a false balance between those highly reliable news outlets with this unreliable outlet. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@Abhishek0831996: Referring basic enwiki policies is not wikilawyering. You are aware of the discussion which led to the removal of this from the lede (). Rather than choosing to ignore that, I would recommend you self-rv here. Gotitbro (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
No discussion ever led to removal of the sentence from lead. As already mentioned, you are talking about the 14 November edit, which happened more than a month after the last discussion was stale. You should consider it accidental. It was unrelated to any discussion. I was always supportive of keeping this sentence. I am also notifying WT:INB about this now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Abhishek0831996, I'm following up on this from the WikiProject India talk page notification. It's unclear if there a formal or fresh attempt to seek consensus for this edit in this thread? Perhaps that'd be helpful, otherwise it seems that any action is likely be contested/reverted anyway. For what it's worth, based on the discussion and my evaluation of the sources, I lean with Gotitbro that it seems undue for lead section. — WeWake (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd like to see a secondary source that doesn't talk about a specific instance of FirstPost getting it wrong, but a more generalized statement about FirstPost posting stories with incorrect information, where the source is the one generalizing. Putting something in the lead that's backed by sources on two specific instances is getting into UNDUE territory. For the lead, there should be a source speaking in general terms. Ravensfire (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree completely with Ravensfire here, and with Gotitbro's comments above. For such a statement to be DUE in the lead, there will have to be a good quality WP:RS that says so in itself. Otherwise it is WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH of disparate instances in an WP:OR manner to say what those sources don't themselves say. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There are just too many instances of this outlet spreading disinformation. You can read recent reports: They haven't been mentioned on main article as of yet. Koshuri ^(あ!) 13:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

What would be ideal here is something like what NewsLaundry did on ANI, where it looked across multiple examples of ANI publishing incorrect information and wasn't good about correcting it when notified. That last link you posted included "Hindustan Times, NDTV, Zee News, The Indian Express, Firstpost, The Economic Times, ABP Ananda" - should all of those articles say in the lead that they have posted false information? Key part to this discussion is including this in the lead. Look at some of the discussion on the ANI article and the push for very strong sourcing to include an extraordinary claim in the lead. It wouldn't be hard to find sources for pretty much every news source , for the lead I want to see sources saying there's a pattern or frequency. Ravensfire (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Firstpost is a VERY biased website and we have sources stating so as well. For instance, the Caravan has published this article on the Firstpost removing an article critical of the BJP leaders, with diktats stating such critical content should not be made. In addition, this list details multiple such deletions. Aside from Caravan, we have other sources already listed in the article, such as those from ThePrint. It is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the government. I believe instead of removing the misinformation statement, its pro-government "journalism" should be added in the lead too. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Bias itself has no effect on the reliability of a source. Sure, we can include pro-government et. al. (if directly stated so by sources) but this does not address the SYNTH statement in the lede. I am still waiting for sources that state in their own voice state that this source either regularly posts misinfo or is unreliable. Gotitbro (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yet we already have sources given for Firstpost being unreliable and publishing misinformation in their articles. And secondly, bias absolutely has a massive effect on the reliability of a source, especially when it is as extreme as Firstpost's is, with there literally being diktats to not criticise leaders of the ruling party, and editora high profile quiting for editorial burdens because of it. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I am still waiting for sources which say exactly that. Gotitbro (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Isn't Firstpost among the leading fake news spreaders in India? No one would doubt after checking links such as this and this. Orientls (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
>"Isn't Firstpost among the leading fake news spreaders in India", now if only you could present a good quality WP:RS that calls it a 'leading fake news spreader in India' in those terms or a similar phrasing, instead of just your own WP:OR. To say so in the lead we would need that. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

We need sources to say that, imputing it through original analysis is not something we can do. (PS: Not sure what to do with the latter links but bias=/=fake news). Gotitbro (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Then you are simply not serious because the controversies section already has enough content about how this website has frequently posted fake news. Also see the recent reports provided just above by Koshuri Sultan. Orientls (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Again we are taking about the lede here bring sources which state the same, not WP:SYNTH from disparate sources/instances. Otherwise pretty clearly this is an undue insertion. Gotitbro (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The information is absolutely WP:DUE for the lead EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

, Please do not unilaterally remove templates with misleading edit summaries. There is not even the faintest semblance of consensus for their removal here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

They are outdated. You had enough time to refute the information but the information cited on the article still hasnt been refuted. You cannot keep the tags forever. Koshuri ^(あ!) 15:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that rule anywhere in Help:Maintenance tag removal. It does say, however: "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place." WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH issues were flagged by several editors in this discussion (Gotitbro, Ravenfire, WeWake and myself) and I don't see anyone indicating that these issues have been resolved. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Still the "information cited on the article still hasnt been refuted". You should stop spamming tags outside your limited concern over that single sentence. Koshuri ^(あ!) 08:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to tag admin @Rosguill: here, on whether this repeated edit warring to continuously remove templates that have been in the article for months without engaging with the concerns at all is appropriate or not. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You are part of the edit warring problem which you are complaining against. Just because a tag has been present "for months" does not mean it was always justified for inclusion or that it cannot be removed if editors deemed the issue is resolved. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"if editors deemed the issue is resolved. And who are these editors who deemed it resolved? Did any of the editors who raised these concersn, i.e. @Gotitbro, Ravensfire, and WeWake: deem it resolved. Or did you personally deem it resolved after originally arguing that there was no issue to begin with? How absurd. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The original concern with SYNTH was ridiculous. That the outlet has published false information is reliably sourced. To then claim that simply stating so in Wikipedia is SYNTH goes against what SYNTH actually stands for. The article has had new content added since this discussion originally began in August of last year which have helped in resolving the issues given. Furthermore, thus far, the only issues you have brought up are more appropriate handled by tagging the specific sentence (since your concerns only deals with a single sentence) rather than tag bombing the whole article. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The maintenance tags are not appropriate. The only one which could be argued for is the synth tag (which I have restored to resolve the edit warring). However, even that could be very easily fixed by changing the wording from "misinformation" to "incorrect information" or "false information" if we really wanna be technical. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Koshuri What do you think about changing the term "misinformation" to "incorrect information" to resolve this? — EarthDude (Talk) 09:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion with which several editors disagree. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Does not justify your tagging spam on the entire article. Koshuri ^(あ!) 08:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Those editors have not even commented on this specific proposal of mine. What you should have done is actually try to work on resolving the issue at hand with me and Koshuri, instead of edit warring and making up what other editors might think of something as justification for outright dismissing it. The only valid concern I can think of, that the sources don't explicitly use the term "misinformation" and could thus be called SYNTH by technicality, is resolved by this proposal, alongside the edit warring over the tags. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2025

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I’ve updated the proposed text to remove any promotional tone and ensured it focuses solely on verifiable, factual information with reliable citations. Requesting a re-review.

Change X:The site is owned by Network18 Group, which also runs CNN-News18 and CNBC TV18.

To Y:The site is owned by Network18 Group, which also runs CNN-News18 and CNBC TV18. The site covers a wide range of topics including India news, world affairs, business, technology, lifestyle and more. Firstpost often promotes the idea of presenting global news “through an Indian lens.” Palki Sharma serves as the Managing Editor at Firstpost. She anchors the flagship show Vantage on Firstpost, described as “your destination for global news with an Indian perspective.”^[1]^[2] Ashishgarg91 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Not done: Your proposed addition is excessively promotional in tone; see WP:PROMO. Do you have any relationship with Firstpost? Day Creature (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. I don’t have any relationship or affiliation with Firstpost. My intention was only to improve the article’s completeness and accuracy.

I understand the concern about promotional tone. Here’s a more neutral version of the proposed addition that focuses only on factual information and verifiable sources:

The site is owned by Network18 Group, which also runs CNN-News18 and CNBC TV18. It covers topics including national and international news, business, technology, and lifestyle. Palki Sharma serves as the Managing Editor and anchors the news analysis programme Vantage on Firstpost.

References:

https://www.jioinstitute.edu.in/events/ms-palki-sharma-upadhyay

https://www.firstpost.com/vantage/ Ashishgarg91 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be written in an LLM. Please use your own words. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have rewritten the text in simpler wording now.

I have already added the links above so won't be repeating it now.

Please find the revised version below:

Firstpost mainly focuses on World news, India news, entertainment news, and sports (such as cricket, chess, etc.) and also publishes in-depth explainers that go into detail. Palki Sharma serves as the managing editor and anchor of the news analysis programme Vantage. Ashishgarg91 (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Still seems promotional. I will close this request as

Not done. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 01:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Palki Sharma joins Firstpost as Managing Editor". Jio Institute. Network18 Group. Retrieved 7 November 2025.
[2]
"Vantage — your destination for global news with an Indian perspective". Firstpost. Network18. Retrieved 7 November 2025.

Palki Sharma resigns. Binoy Prabhakar announced named new editor of FP.

Claims of misinformation and inconsistencies with sources

The paragraph containing the "misinformation" claims has wide inconsistencies with sources:

Our article says "In 2023, it misreported a photo of a grave with an iron grille as having been taken in Pakistan, even though the grave was actually located in Hyderabad, India." But that is not what the cited source, AltNews, says. It says, "Other media outlets, including ... Firstpost ... used the same image in their respective reports." AltNews doesn't claim that Firstpost tried to pass off the Hyderabad image as having been taken in Pakistan. Because it didn't . It doesn't say anything about the image. An accurate summary of the AltNews check would be, "Firstpost used an image later found to be unrelated in a story about necrophilia in Pakistan." Using an unrelated image is not false reporting.
Our article says, "In 2023, it falsely reported that Atiq Ahmed's vote had 'saved' the United Progressive Alliance government in 2008." Which makes it seem like this was a claim made by Fristpost, but that is not the case. The cited source says: "... media organisations ... Firstpost, ... claimed that Ahmed's vote "saved" the UPA government in 2008, citing a book Baahubalis of Indian Politics: From Bullet to Ballot as their source." The Firstpost report, which indeed attributes the claim to the book, mentions at the bottom: "(With inputs from PTI)". According to an NDTV report from that time, "a PTI report quoted from a book -- "Baahubalis of Indian Politics: From Bullet to Ballot" -- which claimed that Ahmad "dutifully cast his precious vote, no doubt in favour of the beleaguered UPA". The claim, however, is erroneous, according to the Parliament records." In all likelihood, Firstpost reproduced the erroneous PTI report. Our article attributtes the false claim to Firstpost instead of its actual source, the book.
Again, our article says: "In 2024, it falsely attributed a statement, alleging the US of causing regime change in Bangladesh, to Sheikh Hasina." But the Firstpost report says "According to the Economic Times report which cited the ousted Bangladeshi PM’s close associates" which means that they are citing The Economic Times and not making an original claim. The source used in our article, a "factcheck" by The Quint, claims the statement to be "fasle" based only on a tweet by Hasina's son: "We went through Hasina's son, Sajeeb Wazed's social media accounts, who put out a statement against the alleged quote made by his mother." An accurate summary of this would be "Firstpost reported a claim from The Economic Times that Sheikh Hasina had alleged American involvement in regime change in Bangladesh, which was later disputed by Hasina's son, who claimed that Hasina had never made such a statement."

And then these are being used in a completely WP:SYNTH manner to WP:UNDUE-ly add "[Firstpost] has posted misinformation on multiple occasions" to the very lead of this article. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I see zero sources from you to confirm your half-baked research. Remember, your own WP:OR is completely irrelevant to this page and not applicable. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

We are only as blind as we want to be. There is no OR. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yet another claim regarding the Chinmoy Krishna Das lawywer was inserted by Wareon, while the Alt News article mentioned several newspapers reporting it, not just Firstpost. In fact, the misinformaiton from the sources on the ground and was circulated by Reuters:
“A Muslim lawyer defending Das was killed amid protests outside the court (in Chittagong),” said police officer Liaquat Ali.^[1]

I guess even Alt News did a sloppy job of tracking the misinformation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Does not erase culpability of Firstpost that they promoted the same fake news. Wareon (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Reuters is culpable too by the same token, much more so since they feed news to hundreds of news media. And Alt News too for that matter for not digging into the source of the misinformation.

And you are culpable too for WP:POV pushing under the cover of pretending to be obtuse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You went beyond POV pushing by creating a false balance between Reuters and FirstPost despite FirstPost has a history of spreading disinformation while Reuters is simply the opposite of it. Wareon (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This shows a complete lack of understanding on your part as to how news works. Reuters is a news agency, which "sells" news ("newswires" or "newsfeeds") to its subscribing news organisations. The news organisations are free to print those reports verbatim or to modify/combine them with other sources to create their own news stories. So, when a newsfeed from an agency is faulty, those faults will appear in a large number of news media. When it is apparent that the fault is in the newsfeed, it is meaningless to fault the news organisation that reproduced that news. India also has its own news agencies, such as PTI, ANI and IANS, and similar problems arise with their newsfeeds as well.

The Alt News report did a fact-check and published a noteworthy correction. But they didn't specifically blame any news media for publishing "misinformation", which is what you are claiming here. They gave a link to the Reuters newsfeed and included even a screenshot. You didn't bother to read any of this and understand what had happened. Frankly you are being obtuse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Now you are changing the topic but let me get you back to it. Evidently, contrary to your poor research, FirstPost did not mention Reuters. It mentioned AFP. While Reuters retracted the false claim, FirstPost still hasn't done that. This is just another example to show why their credibility is in shambles. No matter how much you call people "obtuse" for not agreeing with your POV but you know once again why you are making no sense with your poor attempts to erase culpability of FirstPost. Wareon (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The article you linked does not even have the misinformation! What the heck are you trying to prove? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I was supposed to link to this. It is still not removed. Wareon (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That was a twitter post announcing "breaking" news. People are expected to take it as tentative and wait for more authoritative information in the sequel. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the news. The article should focus on notable events, not singular short-lived events. It's not a place to keep a tally of all the mistakes an outlet has made. Wikipedia:NOTNEWS Katiedevi (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

More discrepancies with sources and DUE/POV issues

More OR-esque analysis being added to the section to inflate it:

What was added: "In 2024, it falsely claimed BAPS Hindu Mandir Abu Dhabi to be the first Hindu temple in Abu Dhabi after Narendra Modi inaugurated it." [which btw, would be true since it indeed was the first temple in Abu Dhabi, the fact check was regarding it being the first temple in UAE, as Firstpost later clarified] What does the source say? "... the official X handle of the Government of India’s ministry of culture shared a video clip featuring PM Modi and the priests of the temple. The tweet said: “A Hindu Temple Whispers Change in the UAE. Witness the momentous opening of the first Hindu temple in the UAE. ... News outlets such as ... Firstpost, ... also amplified the claim". The source nowhere says that it was Firstpost's claim, or that the temple wasn't Abu Dhabi's first (only that it wasn't UAE's first). I can only wonder how such wide discrepancy with the source can happen.
Added to article: In 2023, it wrongly reported Amartya Sen to have died. The source says: "A claim that Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has passed away went viral on social media on October 10. On X (formerly Twitter), a handle named after the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics 2023, Claudia Goldin, shared the news first. Thereafter, several news media outlets including ... Free Press Journal, Deccan Chronicle, Firstpost, ... published the news." On digging deeper, it was the work of Tommaso Debenedetti who "is infamous for spreading hoax tweets from fake accounts" and who impersonated Claudia Goldin to spread the fake news of Amartya Sen. Debenedetti has previously fooled The New York Times and The Gaurdian, among others. How this becomes an example of Fristpost being a fake-news spreader is anybody's guess.

There are markings of an WP:UNDUE WP:POVPUSH here. The sources being added are just being mined with keyword searching and no real reading or engagement with them. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard RfC

Contentious Topics Reminder

As a reminder this is page is covered under WP:CT/SA. If there are violations going forward of WP:BRD, WP:3RR, or other disruptive editing then you can expect sanctions. This page has come to WP:RFPP twice now asking for full protection. If you can not handle working towards consensus then you should move on and edit other work until you can. If you have real questions about this put them below. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Just and FYI for all the recent editors.

@trykid, @Koshuri Sultan, @Abhishek0831996, @UnpetitproleX, @Wareon, @Maltazarian, @Kautilya3

Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

For the record I have no real interest in this article and won't be editing it further. I only edited it once to remove a "Synthesis" tag in the lead on a sentence that already had another clean-up tag, as I felt it didn't make sense as it seemed to be a matter of mostly RS and DUE, and maybe standard OR, but not synthesis, and double tagging sentences is already of questionable benefit. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 23:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian: please see WP:SYNTH: "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. ... If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources."

Neither of the sources cited for "[Firstpost] has posted misinformation on multiple occasions" say such a thing; in fact, that is not a conclusion that any source in the article says (see above). Combining multiple [misrepresented] sources to reach a conclusion that none of them explicitly say is textbook SYNTH, hence the tag. UnpetitproleX (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of what synth says, but I simply disagree with you. If source A says "Person A did X", source B "Person B did X" and that is in the body text of the article, then it is not synthesis to write "multiple persons have done X" in the lead. That's just the lead summarizing the body text of the article, as it is supposed to do according to WP:LEAD. For further clarity, consider the part of WP:SYNTH that says: "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

To continue in the style of somewhat loose propositional logic "Person A did X" and "Person B did X" therefore "multiple persons have done X" is not synthesis as it is not an argument of the form

1. A
2. B
3. If A and B then C
c. C

but rather

1. A
2. B
c. A and B

⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 05:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.[underlined by me]

Exactly my point. Because the sources say "Firstpost did X", "Fristpost did Y", and "Firstpost did Z", where X is "used an unrelated image", Y is "republished a disputed claim which originated at ET" and Z is "was fooled by a hoax from an infamous online hoax spreader." As I already said, the conclusion is SYNTH, it uses disparate instances to argue something that none of those sources themselves argue or state. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes: The article is being tag bombed by the supporters of this website since an RfC about it has been started on WP:RSN. When the particular section and the particular sentence (see lead) was already tagged, then why the whole article requires tagging like this and this? Tags are clearly being used here to provide a false impression to the readers that the article is in horrible state when it is not. Orientls (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

So let me see if I am understanding you @Orientls. Your concerns regarding the quality of this article, stemming from the tags that were posted back in September 2025, pose an issue with the ongoing discussion at WP:RSN. Because it these tags are presenting readers with a negative perspective of this article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes: Yes as Orientls and Maltazarian put, double tagging looks troublesome. Either the particular sentences/section should be tagged or the entire article should be tagged. From 28 October 2025 - 2 April 2026, only the article was tagged, not sentences/sections. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

For the record I meant that double tagging isn't useful in the way it was done on the article because clean-up tags are best used for cases where there are one-off issues, not in situations where there are article-wide concerns. That's what we have banners for. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 05:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

There are article wide concerns and the tagging was not out of process. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

"From 28 October 2025 - 2 April 2026, only the article was tagged, not sentences/sections" Because a lot of that content was added recently. If something wasn't present in Nov 2025 in the article, why would it be tagged then? Besides, the problems with the tagged content were clearly detailed on the talk page prior to tagging. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

You have already tagged the section that attracted new content. The whole article does not have to be tagged only because you disagree with a single huge paragraph. Wareon (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

>"only because you disagree"

if you ignore the multiple editors that have raised the same issues, maybe. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The tagging, as it stands, is simply inappropriate. For instance, the Undue Weight tag in the lead is redundant as the stated issue is with content in the history section, which is already tagged with the same. If you believe the article doesn't have content aside from controversies and the outlet's known history off publishing incorrect information and failing to verify, then you can simply add reliably sourced information on things such as the outlet's ownership, its management, and the like, rather than tag bombing the whole article, engaging in meaningless edit warring, or dismissing calls for working on creating a consensus among the community. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The issues are not just with that section though. The issue is with the lead too, as multiple editors above have argued since August 2025. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue in the lead is regarding a single sentence, which itself is already tagged. Again, tag bombing the whole article, with several redundant maintenance tags, remains inappropriate. — EarthDude (Talk) 13:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The tags at the top of the article pertain to the article. The tag at the end of the sentence in the lead pertains to that sentence. The individual tags in the body pertain to the sentences they are next to. The tags at the top have been there for months, and the only more problematic content has been added since then. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

More discrepancies with sources and DUE/POV issues

Related Articles