Talk:Alt News/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of sourced contents

You removed[1] a lot of sourced information citing WP:NOTOPINION but these texts are sourced with reliable sources. Please tell which information you think are opinions? --Jionakeli (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Both sections are opinions. This article cannot be used for promoting the opinions of the website and this is not a Fake news in India article either that we need to raise concerns over fake news on here. You are WP:WIKIHOUNDING my contribution history, so you should better not rely on yourself. Better wait for others to chime in. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Opinion? These are sourced from reputed news media? Please, tell here why you think these were opinions when they have been discussed in national media? Jionakeli (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you think BBC, The Telegraph, Hindustan Times are opinions? --Jionakeli (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss on content? You should stop WP:POLSHOP. --Jionakeli (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Raymond maybe trying to say that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAP. Article is likely going to end up in AFD and it has been tagged for a month over neutrality, this amount of cleanup was a good start. Capitals00 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, how are you? Certainly, we can do the cleanup but this is not the way to remove large chunks of well sourced information without even discussing here on the talk page. Jionakeli (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

They can remove it per WP:BOLD. And anyway, chances are less when it comes to starting a discussion on a red link talk page(it certainly was at the moment) which is watched by almost no one. Capitals00 (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to save the source text and set it for AFD. It needs a full rewrite to conform to neutrality, and I'd reccommend that if one of the people involved in this discussion begin editing it, you consult an administrator to help you ensure it's a neutral article. Keep it encyclopedic, and happy editing! _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

The left-wing website altnews is just a blog launched for political purposes in India, with an eye on upcoming Indian general elections in 2019. With support from left-wing journalists in the mainstream media, it is masquerading as a fact-check website, but in reality is a propaganda website. Wikipedia should either delete the article or clarify the disputed nature of the website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian ai (talk • contribs)

If you think the article should be deleted feel free to follow the process for nominating for deletion. Greyjoy ^talk 00:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

According to a news report Altnews' neutrality highly compromised. Please allow edits to take place. Rangila Mookool (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Which news report? Please cite your source. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See below. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

According to a news report Altnews' neutrality highly compromised. Please allow edits to take place. Source: http://www.opindia.com/2017/09/how-neutral-is-fake-news-buster-altnews/ Rangila Mookool (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
• You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Additionally, the source you cited is an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source for your intended purpose. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2018

Hello, founder of this website is son of a politician and conflict of interest will arise in reporting news which go against the political interest of his party. A viewer of this page have a right to know this. Rangila Mookool (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Request is does not request a specific X to Y change to the text of the article. As an aside, the article does link to AltNews.in's founder's father. A verifiable source would be needed to make the claim of conflict of interest made by Rangila Mookool (talk).--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018

Pratik Sinhas accused of cyber stalking by a young woman. reference is here: http://www.opindia.com/2018/01/co-founder-of-facts-checking-website-altnews-continues-to-spread-lies/

Please make follwing edit: "Pratik Sinha was accused of cyber stalking a woman. Rangeela Mookool & Kana Kayyub's Suptra (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The article cited does not state that Sinha was stalking a woman, rather it asserts that "its founder is known to target prominent twitter users by revealing their personal details and has also been accused of cyber stalking by one individual." This claim is attributed by the article to a series of tweets, and thus Wikipedia cannot see the claim as WP:VER. Also, it calls into question the reliability of Opindia as a reliable source. SamHolt6 (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong data corrected

First Indian fact checking site was FactChecker.in is India’s first dedicated Fact Check initiative. Since early 2013 and not ALt News.https://factchecker.in/about-us/ and not ALt news "In 2014, Govindraj Ethiraj, former editor-in-chief of Bloomberg TV India, started Factchecker.in. Touted as India’s first dedicated fact-checking initiative, it is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network’s code of principles. As per the New Indian express Please see this User:SamHolt6 http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2019/mar/17/myth-busters-on-checking-facts-and-fake-news-1951426.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigstames (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

---

AltNews.in → Alt News – "Alt News" is the common name of this website. A Google search returns 535,000 results for "Alt News", 304,000 results for "AltNews", and 102,000 results for "AltNews.in". Among reliable sources cited in this article, The Hindu, The Financial Express, The Indian Express, BBC (RSP entry), and The Telegraph use "Alt News". "Alt News" is the most suitable title for this article, as it is the common name, it is widely used by independent reliable sources, and it is also the preferred name used by the website itself. — Newslinger talk 21:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - as per nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - ccTLD should not be in the name. Dey subrata (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

Left wing portal (ideology) 2409:4043:217:8D2D:0:0:18A3:8B1 (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Refrain from using or request to add WP:NPOV. Drat8sub (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Needs good secondary sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Source

At the outset, I would like to say that Alt News is a Reliable Source(RS); please see this conversation thread. I concede that it has a POV, but that depends on how WE chooses to write the information on wikipedia (doesn't everyone today have a POV, in today's polarised world?) Please read this discussion here where the debate has ensued.

Thanks, Tanyasingh (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I wrote this to ask why the page has been protected, but I see now that I can edit it!! Whoops!!Tanyasingh (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

In answer to your question, "doesn't everyone today have a POV?", the answer is NO. At least those of us who have been writing for Wikipedia for a long time, do our best not to have a POV. Good journalists are the same.

Also, we don't "choose" to write the information on Wikipedia in a particular way. We are guided by what the best-quality reliable sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Certification

regarding the certification, I have marked the Dubious template as the certification is expired. Definitely no media will write about its certification getting expired, however the organisation that grants the certifications says that it is expired as per this link. So please do not remove the "Dubious" template unless discussed. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Karthikndr, the organisation that grants the certification also continues to list the organisation in its list of signatories with a disclaimer that "Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the application process is taken longer than usual. Therefore some of the expired signatories could actually be under renewal." This is nothing more than bureaucratic technicalities so of course "no media will write about it" which is also why we should ignore it unless secondary sources themselves start treating it as not a certified org or report on its expiration. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been 4 months since their application expired, so the statement "is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network." is no longer true. Even if the process were delayed due to COVID, it should be mentioned in the line that they are no longer an IFCN Signatory. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that would be a true statement. Expiration of a certification and delisting from signatory status are completely different things. The only thing we can directly derives from that page is that their signatory badge has expired, which is not really encyclopedic material nor should primary sources be used like this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In fact it seems Poynter Institute (the parent of IFCN) itself still refers to AltNews as a signatory after the expiration of its certification. See this; Mantas, Harrison (20 May 2020). "Why would Indian police issue and then withdraw a manual on misinformation? Political divides could be the answer". Poynter Institute.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Its almost 4 months since certification has expired. When the alleged factchecker can collect donations online, why can't it get certification renewed. Others with certification from same agency have been renewed. Sureshnakhua (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, unless we hear that the renewal was rejected, we do nothing. It is not our job to track certificates and expirations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Does that mean we continue to mention that it is verified fact checker even after we know the facts ?

We don't edit. We don't allow anyone else to edit.

Isn't it bit dictatorial ?

In real world, it's called duplicitous hypocrisy

Sureshnakhua (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that word "formally certified" is more suitable as the certificate has been expired. That is fact and we shall add the updated fact when it will be certified again. I don't see point of Tayi here.Sarasvatichandra (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a disagreement on Tayi's point. The disclaimer provided is part of own research. However, agreeing to Sarasvatichandra, we can definitely mention "formally certified" - that's more subtle. I do want "Dubious" tag to exist until there is a renewal of the certification with a third part source. The reason for having "Dubious" added is the none of the source directly speaks about the certification been granted to ALT News. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've altered the wording from "certified" to "signatory partner" to better reflect the sources as well as avoid the useless debate on expired badges of certification. The disclaimer that I mentioned was in reference to how the usage of a primary source in that case was in violation of policy which still stands. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I also have a disagreement on mentioning the certification in the lead. Should be moved to history as the same sounds promotional. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, I stand with the point mentioned above. Certification or calling it as "signatory partner" doesn't justifies the lead section - it sounds way too promotional. Its worth while to mention this on history. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a major aspect of the site which is quite frequently covered by secondary sources when refering to Alt News. It also contains no puffery and is presented in an objective and descriptive form. Not to mention, this doesn't address your insistence on having a disputed statement template on an otherwise pertinently cited line. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is definitely not. For the matter of fact that the wikilink provided for certification itself redirects to be section. I suggest taking this discussion ahead to RFC rather going from and to specially with your behaviour on rollbacking edits which tags the sentence as dubious. I still stand-by my point on citing this sounding promotional in the lead section. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you disputing the factual accuracy of the sentence? If not, then that is inappropiate cite tagging. You are also free to open an RfC on whether it needs to be in the lead or not. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

summoned by bot there's no formally worded rfc, but from what I can determine, this involves Alt News' IFCN status, and where it should sit in the article. This article [[2]] posted May 20th 2020 says "The Bureau of Police Development and Research cited Alt News, BOOM, Factly, The Quint, and India Today as, “Fake News Spotting and Fact-Checking resources.” in its manual. All are IFCN-approved signatories." The simplest solution would be to say in the lead "As of May 2020, Alt News was an IFCN approved signatory." That's supported by the source. Anything else that qualifies that further needs to be supported with a different source. If there are caveats and criticism, they can go in the body, in an Alt News#IFCN signatory section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtempleton, apologies on not having a format wording on RFC but glad that you got it right. I agree with you that it makes sense to simple say that "As of May 2020, Alt News was an IFCN approved signatory." For me, that sounds less promotional. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Proceed with the changes maybe? A "as of Sep 2020, Alt News is not an IFCN approved signatory" would suit it better. Jenos450 (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Jenos450, you would need a reliable source to explicitly state that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The official site claims that, why do you need a secondary source here? Jenos450 (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Because the "official site" does not explicitly state that and because secondary sources as well as the parent organisation's own news division explicitly refers to Alt News as a signatory well past the supposed expiration date of its certification without any mention of any such expiration. I've already explained this above and I'd recommend thoroughly going through WP:PRIMARY to everyone who has been trying to change the article to state that it is currently not a signatory. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Among the suggestions presented here so far, "As of May 2020, Alt News was an IFCN approved signatory." would also be my preferred wording, as it is accurate and concise. I would slightly revise it to "As of May 2020, Alt News was an IFCN-ceritified signatory." to be more consistent with the language used by the IFCN. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I would support saying "As of May 2020, Alt News was an", because that seems consistent with sources. I just checked Poynter website, and even though months have passed, the status of Alt News has not changed on the website. I have no opinion on how the rest of the sentence should end. I believe mentioning the IFCN in the lead would be WP:UNDUE and instead the fragment should be moved to the body.

I shall update the lead with "As of May 2020, Alt News was ..." Feel free to revert me, if you think consensus has not been reached. Politrukki (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete

DainikBharat.org does not exist anymore. why shouldn't it be deleted from the article?Jenos450 (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't restricted to covering things that currently exist. — Newslinger talk 03:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

Add a list of controversies in the wiki page which is provided in many wiki pages for transparency and there are some controversies regarding founders of alt news. It should not be portrayed in bad light. For example an fir against the founder of alt news for doxing a minor. Source : https://scroll.in/latest/972341/two-firs-filed-against-altnews-co-founder-mohammed-zubair-for-allegedly-doxing-minor-girl Aritwik93 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think he is talking about the controversy that the co-founder recently faced. It would help in greater transparency. Jenos450 (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Newslinger talk 00:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, are you sure this qualifies for inclusion? From what I understand Zubair is a low profile individual who gets quoted by the media occasionally in relation to his status as the co-founder of Alt News. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

​In my opinion, Zubair is not a low-profile individual, mainly because he has over 150,000 followers on Twitter and because he actively promotes Alt News to his Twitter audience. The reliable source coverage of this controversy is quite extensive, and I think it's significant enough to be in the article. The difficult part is to ensure that the content in the article does not make any claims that are not supported by the cited sources. — Newslinger talk 04:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure if having a large twitter following and promoting his website on the same is enough to be considered a public figure but I'll take it at your word. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If the coverage of the controversy referred to Zubair and not to Alt News, then I would consider the controversy out of the scope of the article. However, most of the cited sources refer to Zubair in this situation in the context of his role in Alt News, and some sources even suggest that the escalation of the complaint was a response to Alt News's work as a fact-checker. — Newslinger talk 05:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand the scope which is why I'm refraining from opposing it further. I just want to point out in general that the allegation in the controversy is against an individual and is rather severe in nature, due to which at the least additional care should be taken with any presentation of it in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Doxxing of Twitter users by co founders of Alt news

If Wiki editors can condemn OpIndia over doxxing of one of its fraternity (OpIndia was not correct),then an addition must be made to the Alt News page that Pratik Sinha wilfully doxxed and leaked information on anon users with evil intentions of harm. I am a staunch centrist and will call a spade a spade. Also, do a follow u on status of their expired certificate--YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)YoYoRockNRoll

It is not Wikipedia's job to "condemn" anyting. See WP:NOT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

YoYoRockNRoll, i have edited the IFCN information appropriately. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on the IFCN information. I am saying that shouldn't the fact that a fact checking portal owner doxx private individuals (just like how OpIndia wrongly doxxed people) be added? YoYoRockNRoll (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

YoYoRockNRoll, WP:BOLD. just make sure you follow WP:NPOV and WP:RSChunnuBhai (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

IFCN signatory

I changed the signatory data to present tense based on data from the IFCN website. Vikram 07:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram, hi Vikram. this is what AltNews cofounder said on twitter. [3]. [4] also mentions the expiry on left sidebar. They have not reapplied. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ChunnuBhai. Vikram 07:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)