Talk:OpIndia

I would like to know if I am permitted to utilize the thorough research analysis that Opindia conducted under the heading "Wikipedia's war on India" in a new section of this article titled Investigation. I have carefully reviewed the research article as given below and have identified several items that could improve this page.

https://www.scribd.com/document/767384994/Wikipedia-s-War-on-India-An-OpIndia-Dossier

Thanks 2409:40C2:4054:8D84:CCC:7021:27C:535E (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Per community consensus,   OpIndia (RSP entry) is a generally unreliable source for the reasons explained in the article corresponding to this talk page. The use of the linked document is not appropriate for this Wikipedia article, as it would constitute undue weight. However, if a reliable source covers the linked document, that reliable source might be eligible for inclusion. — Newslinger talk 11:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Opindia cannot be considered as a fake news website now as it hasn't published fake news since 2021 and nowadays , when they publish news , they show a tweet of ANI or other news channels to support that. They have improved significantly now. Also the organisation which termed opindia as fake news website was a partner of Altnews till april 2020 which is opindia's biggest rival. You can just look at the news articles after march 2021 . They have changed drastically. We can now just say that it is an organisation and write their fake news under a separate title named Controversies . That would be much better 2405:201:4001:419C:B56F:68EF:AE98:8FD0 (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

As original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles, your claim that OpIndia has stopped publishing fake news since 2021 needs to be supported by reliable sources before it can be incorporated into the article. — Newslinger talk 09:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Case registered against OpIndia for promoting enmity, creating fake news; 7 April 2023. GrabUp - Talk 18:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

AltNews like websites are biased and should not be considered as a reliable source as they provide fake proofs and is owned by son of a politician in India and one of the co-founders was arrested as he made Hinduphobic comments and created an edited video to target a girl who was just using her freedom of speech Sarvagyalal (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sarvagyalal: So, what you want know here? GrabUp - Talk 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Alt News was certified in 2019 by the  International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry), which is a positive indicator of its reliability. If you would like to inquire about the reliability of Alt News, feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It might be because AltNews was signatory partner of this organisation till April 2020, and friends and partners help each other. Sarvagyalal (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Signatory partners have to be certified. That's how the network functions: it assesses that organisations meet its criteria, certifies them, and then they become partners.

If you want to contend that AltNews shouldn't be trusted, you will need to bring actual evidence to suggest it is untrustworthy. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

https://www.vishvasnews.com/english/viral/fact-check-alt-news-report-presents-false-misleading-claims-and-distorted-facts/

here is the proof. 2405:201:4001:419C:85ED:FE0D:F687:2B2F (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

altnewd has always promoted hinduphobia (Redacted) 2405:201:4001:419C:85ED:FE0D:F687:2B2F (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted) they are completely biased towards the congress party which was ruling party in india for almost 53 years. (Redacted) Sarvagyalal (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

In Vishvas News's February 2023 fact check that you linked, Vishvas News objected to a July 2022 article published by Alt News, claiming that the Alt News article said: "Hindi media news organisation Dainik Jagran has not used the term 'Flood Jehad' but has tried to give a communal colour to the matter". However, the July 2022 Alt News article actually said: "Hindi media outlet Dainik Jagran didn’t use the phrase 'flood jihad' but its report stated, 'There are signs of a deep conspiracy behind this.'" Vishvas News even includes a screenshot of Alt News's article with the correct quote, in contrast to the incorrect quote in Vishvas News's article text. A archived copy from July 2022 (via the Wayback Machine) confirms that Alt News used the same language for this sentence from the date of publication. It is unclear why Vishvas News misquoted Alt News, when both the screenshot Vishvas News provided and the Alt News article that Vishvas News links to contain different language.

Based on the above, it is clear that Vishvas News is a questionable source, and Vishvas News's incorrect quotation of Alt News has no bearing on Alt News's reliability. See also Alt News's response to Vishvas News's claims. Feel free to start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard if you would like to examine these sources further.

Finally, your unsourced comments against Mohammed Zubair are in violation of Wikipedia's content policy regarding living persons. Please avoid making such comments, including on talk pages. — Newslinger talk 05:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Indian High Courts will order Wikipedia to remove "defamatory content" against OpIndia also. Let's see how Indian courts protect free speech. Nathularog (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users: 45.124.143.221 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) 2409:40c2:405e:1ff1:ac0f:9d89:567b:82c9 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

One incident is picked to demonstrate the biasness of Newslaundry. Newslaundry cannot be used as a ref in this page 45.124.143.221 (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective", and you have additionally not provided any evidence that Newslaundry is biased regarding OpIndia. Multiple reliable sources, including academic sources, are cited which describe OpIndia as far-right. See Special:Permalink/1292093784 § #cite note-far-right-2 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

More information Coverage Element, Tabrez Ansari (2019) (Muslim Victim) ...

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comparative Framing by Newslaundry: Tabrez Ansari (Muslim Victim) vs Kanhaiya Lal (Hindu Victim) Coverage Element Tabrez Ansari (2019) (Muslim Victim) Kanhaiya Lal (2022) (Hindu Victim) Headline Tone (accurate but biased) Strong emotional framing, described as "lynching" by "Hindutva mob" Described as "tailor’s murder", less emotionally loaded Labeling of Accused Group termed as "mob", linked to Hindutva ideology Individuals named, no collective ideological label in headline Communal Angle Highlighted Clearly framed as hate crime, mentions of communal violence prominent Religious motive mentioned, but less emphasized in early coverage Humanization of Perpetrators No details about accused individuals’ background Described killer sympathetic and humanising as "father of two", "collection agent", with neighbor quotes Article Volume Multiple stories and follow-ups with strong commentary Fewer stories, toned-down editorial tone Visual & Language Tone Use of words like "mob justice", "hate", "lynching", often repeated Terms like "hacked", "horror" used, but balanced with soft background Overall Editorial Position Victim-centered narrative, structural criticism of Hindu nationalist elements Descriptive, not analytical; muted stance

Close

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40c2:405e:1ff1:ac0f:9d89:567b:82c9 (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

LLM-generated comments are not allowed in Wikipedia discussions, and do not count toward consensus. Unless you are somehow trying to imply that OpIndia is associated with the 11 individuals of the mob that lynched Tabrez Ansari, your comment is wholly irrelevant to this talk page. — Newslinger talk 13:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I used a writing assistant to help draft this response, but the research, reasoning, and comparison were entirely based on my own understanding and direct review of Newslaundry’s coverage amongst hundreds of article. I located and analyzed the articles myself.

Instead of dismissing the argument on the basis of tool usage, it would have been more constructive to engage with the core issue, the demonstrable difference in editorial framing between the Tabrez Ansari and Kanhaiya Lal cases. As an admin @Newslinger, I respectfully suggest that a neutral examination of such concerns especially when they involve potential systemic bias in sources used on Wikipedia could benefit the discussion more than focusing on the drafting method. 45.124.143.221 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

"I used a writing assistant to help draft this response, but the research, reasoning, and comparison were entirely based on my own understanding and direct review..." is LLM-generated language that I have seen many times over on Wikipedia when an editor is confronted about their posting of LLM-generated content. LLM-generated talk page comments are unacceptable on Wikipedia and do not count toward consensus. The AI chatbot that you are using apparently does not understand why the argument you posted has absolutely nothing to do with OpIndia, unless you are trying to argue that OpIndia is associated with the mob of 11 individuals that lynched Tabrez Ansari. Please note that I am participating in this discussion in my capacity as an editor, not as an administrator. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

You are participating in your individual capacity which reflects your ethics, attitude, capability, competence based on which you were earlier granted admin rights. So use it wisely. 152.56.13.140 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and unless you have something relevant to say about improving this article on OpIndia, your comments here are off-topic. — Newslinger talk 14:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)