Talk:OpIndia

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

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

Archives: 1: 3 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a contentious topic.

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 are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.

Restrictions placed: 25 March 2023

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why does this article describe OpIndia negatively?

A1: Wikipedia’s aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe OpIndia negatively, this article also describes OpIndia negatively.

Q2: Why does this article say that OpIndia is right-wing?

A2: Most independent reliable sources describe OpIndia as a right-wing publication. Please see these references for details.

Q3: Why can't I cite OpIndia as a source on Wikipedia?

A3: Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 § OpIndia and Swarajya for details.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

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.

India: Politics 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 the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in March 2020.

Hinduism Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 26 March 2020, see discussion.
Delete, 5 March 2018, see discussion.

OPindia research article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fake news

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Post-ANI case

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)[reply]

Newslaundry

Off-topic. Use the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss the reliability of a source unrelated to the article subject. — Newslinger talk 09:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Newslaundry is a left wing organisation funded by Pierre Omidyar( as per them only) , so how can it be considered as reliable if it is a left wing website and Opindia as unreliable if it is a right wing website . Also stop spreading Hinduphobia by defaming Hindus. wikipedia should be neutral not biased . wikipedia has no reliable source other than biased left wing funded websites. 2405:201:4001:419C:85ED:FE0D:F687:2B2F (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have provided no evidence that Newslaundry is "left wing", and additionally, bias does not disqualify a source from being reliable.

OpIndia (RSP entry) is considered questionable because of its pattern of publishing false and fabricated information; its far-right political orientation, by itself, is not the factor that makes it questionable. Reliably sourced information about Hindu nationalist publications such as OpIndia is not "Hinduphobic". — Newslinger talk 06:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A clear example of news laundry bias can be observed by comparing NewsLaundry’s coverage of two communal violence cases: the lynching of Tabrez Ansari and the brutal murder of Kanhaiya Lal. A simple search of "#TabrezAnsari" on the platform yields multiple articles highlighting the incident as a hate crime perpetrated by a "Hindutva mob," with a tone of sympathy and victimhood. In contrast, searching "#KanhaiyaLal" returns noticeably fewer results, many of which subtly downplay the religious extremism behind his murder or frame it with nuanced language that dilutes the severity of the act. This disparity in tone and volume suggests a selective editorial bias—one that appears more comfortable spotlighting violence against minorities than addressing instances where the majority community is victimized.

You can see the description of the Killer of Kanhaiya Lal as described by NL by yourself

"Ghouse(The killer of Kanhaiya Lal), a father of two, worked as a collection agent for Sahara India, according to his neighbours. "

J B gupta17 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lynching of Tabrez Ansari article states that 11 individuals were accused of murdering Ansari, whereas the Murder of Kanhaiya Lal article explains that Lal was murdered by two people, which is why mob (a term that refers to a larger group) is only used for the 11 individuals. A straightforward description of someone's personal life and occupation is neither positive or negative. What you are saying does not show bias, and additionally, reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. — Newslinger talk 15:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attemp to spin the issue, newslinger(Admin) !

The talk is about NL covering of the two murder incident one of a Hindu and other of Muslim. NL attempted to sympathize and make victim out of Tabrez murder. Wherear in case of Kanhaiya lal. they published Ghous (murderer of Kanhaiya lal) as "Ghouse(The killer of Kanhaiya Lal), a father of two, worked as a collection agent for Sahara India". This is an easy identification that NL is biased left leaning and a handful of editor and admin of WP selectively choose the corrupt news outlet as RS. Bozy Gerry (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that Ansari was not murdered by 11 individuals (a mob) or that Ghouse was not a father or a collection agent, feel free to share that evidence on the reliable sources noticeboard, as these articles have nothing to with OpIndia. Otherwise, the article contents are correct and demonstrate Newslaundry's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by the reliable sources guideline. — Newslinger talk 14:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News laundry 's web articles used for this page to setup the narrative about Opindia, which is being dissected here .

editorial tone and coverage patterns across comparable events can reasonably be used to question the editorial bias of a publication (Newslaundy in this case)even if its factual reporting remains accurate. The issue here is not whether 11 people were involved in one case and two in another, but the qualitative framing in both incidents.

Tabrez Ansari case, NL's language used strong terms like Hindutva mob, hate crime, and offered emotional and detailed context about the victim's suffering, reflecting editorial emphasis on communal motives. And in the Kanhaiya Lal case, despite the killer having filmed the act and stating religious motives NL chooses to publish humanizing/sympathasizing details about the killers's personal life something not extended to the accused in the Ansari case.

This depicts the NewsLaundry's bias in black and white. Bozy Gerry (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You nailed it bozy 152.56.17.158 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've cherry-picked one sentence from the Newslaundry article, but overlooked that "What happened in the days and minutes before Udaipur tailor’s murder?" described the murder of Lal as a "horror" in which he was "hacked to death", and explained that Grouse "visited the Karachi office of Dawat-e-Islami, which is alleged to draw inspiration from Tehreek-i-Labbaik, an extremist group". It is incorrect to claim that Newslaundry portrayed Grouse positively, as these claims are negative, whereas Grouse being a father and a collection agent is neither positive nor negative. You have provided no evidence that Newslaundry is biased or unreliable as a result of its factually correct coverage.

Furthermore, this Newslaundry article has nothing to do with OpIndia, and is not cited in this Wikipedia article about OpIndia, so please be reminded that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions about unrelated topics. If you want to complain about media portrayals of various murders, you are welcome to do so on an alternative outlet. — Newslinger talk 17:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the concern isn’t about one sentence it is about a difference in editorial tone. In the Ansari case, Newslaundry used terms like Hindutva mob . But in the Kanhaiya Lal case, despite a filmed murder with religious motives, the article included humanizing details about the killer ex "father of two", "collection agent" and downplayed ideological framing.

Above all family and profession details are missing for the accused in the Ansari case. Newslaundry bias is no secret 45.124.143.221 (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabarez Ansari was lynched by a mob of 11 individuals who at the same time forced Ansari to chant "Jai Shri Ram", a phrase that has been widely used by Hindu nationalists, including for "the perpetration of communal violence against Muslims", according to our article. So, yes, it was a Hindutva mob that lynched Ansari. On the other hand, there is nothing intrinsically positive about being a father or a collection agent.

Your cherrypicking of a single phrase or single sentence from Newslaundry articles that contain hundreds of words and tens of sentences – articles that are not even related to the article subject (OpIndia) and not cited in the article OpIndia – is inappropriate for this talk page and is a clear violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Article talk pages are for improving the corresponding Wikipedia article, and as you are unable to stay on topic, I am closing this discussion per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. — Newslinger talk 09:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newslaundry Cont.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

**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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]