Talk:Godi media/Archive 1

Archive 1

attribution to Ravish Kumar

the wire attributes this term to Ravish Kumar here [1] . washington post attributes the same here [2]. Times of India here [3] . gulf news attributes to Ravish again [4]. Two of the above sources are opinion pieces, by known journalists. This should be enough to attribute this term to Ravish. I am editing the lead sentence accordingly. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support ChunnuBhai, I agree with this proposal. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support also SunnyBuddha (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This had been added already by ChunnuBhai. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

Hemant Dabral, I reverted you saying, "NH was attributed among "detractors of Godi-media"; Why was Ravish Kumar's attribution removed too?)". You have not provided answer.

And as for WP:YOUTUBE, where does it say, youtube videos "should not be used"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, YouTube is not a reliable source, also there can be a potential copyright infringement using YouTube.

National Herald is a publication run by Indian National Congress, currently the main opposition party in India. It's sources are not independent thus unreliable. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 18:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have serious trouble comprehending what is written. It says "However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia". This has nothing to do with "reliability". If it is COPYVIO, please state which ones are, and why.

"NH", i.e., National Herald, was attributed as a "detractor of Godi-media". Whether it is related to Congress or not is irrelevant. They can all be detractors, for all we care. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Page title

Move Godi-media and Draft:Godi Media to Godi media. 122.179.102.155 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. Please participate in the requested move below. Feel free to merge the content from Draft:Godi Media into this article. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2021

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: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Godi-media → Godi media – All of the cited reliable sources that mention the article subject spell it without the hyphen, and a cursory news search suggests that the unhyphenated form is the common name. I am unsure if it would be better to treat this as a proper noun phrase (i.e. Godi Media, as used in The Indian Express) or as a common noun phrase (i.e. godi media, as used in The Caravan). — Newslinger talk 07:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support hyphen is not used anywhere in WPRS.ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support This name will appear when you search. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per editor Surtsicna (i.e. Godi Media) 122.182.243.177 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support this is really a no brainer. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2021 (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.

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Draft:Godi Media into Godi media. 122.179.109.33 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't need a merge discussion to add content from a draft to an article in mainspace, you only need to attribute any content you copy from one page to another one. If there had been any sourced, neutrally written text in the draft that does not repeat content that's already in the article, you could have added it to the article with an attribution in the edit summary (such as "adding content from Draft:Godi Media").

However, the draft (which is only three sentences) doesn't contain any info that isn't in the article already, so the question is a bit moot. --bonadea contributions talk 16:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional references

Found these refs at Draft:Godi Media (redirected to main article now). KyloRen3 (talk)

References

Additional format

Found this format at Draft:Godi Media (redirected to main article now) 122.171.196.25 (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories § Redirect request: Indian Whatsapp University, Modi's Media, Modi media, Modia, Lapdog media, Bikau media , Dalal media and Bharkau media!

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories § Redirect request: Indian Whatsapp University, Modi's Media, Modi media, Modia, Lapdog media, Bikau media , Dalal media and Bharkau media!. 122.179.55.205 (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is this even an article?

Why is this even an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.158.124 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

it passes WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a non-serious baseless article. Delete it. Iamyourfriend108 (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Iamyourfriend108, this article was nominated for deletion in the past, the result was keep ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

See, the sources used in this article are from people who are an interest group to this. That cannot be true description.

If you have studied history, I have some example to illustrate this logical fallacy. Suppose, you want to judge the First War of Independence. Would you expect Cambridge or Oxford school of historians to present a true picture? No. Of course, their accounts or viewpoint can't be nullified but far from being a neutral observer, they cannot be trusted upon to constitute the jury.

I am not saying that the article should be deleted. All I want to say is, at least allow the other side to present themselves. Only then would the article be neutral. Iamyourfriend108 (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

grammatical error above: an example Iamyourfriend108 (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Iamyourfriend108, you have exactly asked this article to be deleted above. If you want to improve the article, you can do that. Just make sure it is backed by WP:RS ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote that (Delete it) in a moment of excitement. My apologies. Iamyourfriend108 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bhakts

We can, hopefully, start off with the blank sections on followers/bhakts and work on expanding it. 122.167.32.141 (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It is almost never appropriate to add empty sections to articles, and especially not in a case where it is not clear what would be in the sections, or if there is any relevant content and reliable sources supporting it. "Followers" is unclear (how are you a "follower" of a type of journalism?) and "bhakts" seems to be a word used about people who are perceived to be uncritically positive to the government, but not strictly related to the media phenomenon. --bonadea contributions talk 10:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadeal: Please add these sections to the Narendra Modi article and then link it here. 122.172.188.47 (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you pinged another user, since you did not spell my user name correctly. The sections are empty and the "Bhakts" section as it existed before would not be appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, so no, that should not be added to that article either. --bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you cannot simply add a section about a pejorative name without proving that it meets due notability. Do you have enough reliable sources to prove it? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 15:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI:why don't you google it ? 122.182.243.116 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI:Hope 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 will help you. 122.182.243.116 (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's see.

• 1: Article does not mention the word 'bhakts', or anything even remotely similar, in any way.
• 2: Only mention: A government used to thali-beating and lamp-lighting obedient “bhakts” has no understanding to deal with the spilling of anger on the streets of India by marginalised people to seek justice in a peaceful and democratic way.
• 3: Opinion piece in a Pakistani source that calls the Pulwama attacks a 'false-flag operation', a controversial claim that has not been proven by any solid evidence except Arnab Goswami saying, a few days before the incident, that 'something' was going to happen. We at Wikipedia cannot guess and assume what may or may not have happened prior to the Pulwama incident. Therefore, till we have proof of anything reported by multiple RSes as articles rather than op-eds, this op-ed is unreliable.
• 4: This is a blog of a reader, not even a journalist. See this.
• 5: Opinion piece, two mentions: Therefore, I refuse to take side on the controversy over the irresponsible stupidities of Tablighi Jaamat (TJ) leadership that has significantly added to the coronavirus proliferation in India and the Modi-bhakt, ‘Godi’ media’s latest communal campaign against Indians Muslims to portray them as fifth column of the enemy across the border, a core belief of the RSS creed. and We also witnessed the Bhakts’ repeat performances of dancing, shouting and cracker-bursting on the roads in response to the PM’s calls to show national unity.
• 6: Opinion piece. Good source, written by journalist in good standing, but again, clarifies only one thing - 'bhakts' in this situation refers to 'blind devotees' of the BJP.
• 7: Clarifies the previous citation, and adds one fact that they are not RSS ideologues.
• 8: Same thing again, a 'bhakt' is an uncritical supporter of the BJP. Reliability of source is questionable, but in any case, we are talking only about opinion pieces anyway, so I guess that does not matter.
• 9 Are you serious?
• 10: Opinion piece; the author talks about followers of Anupam Kher in particular, not those of the BJP in general. Again, says nothing beyond implying that they are blind followers. The source DailyO is considered unreliable.
• 11: Again, proves nothing beyond the fact that 'bhakts' are blind followers. Again, from DailyO.
• 12... this is the same as 7, above.
• 13: Opinion piece, goes into lengthy tirades against specific media houses without providing any objective evidence, also does not say anything new about 'bhakts' except that they are, specifically, Internet fans of the BJP.
• 14... a repeat of 6, above.
• 15... uhh, another repeat, of 6 again.
• 16 The TOI Reader's Blog, again. See point 4.
• 17 Again, nothing beyond The ultimate insult to a Modi fan, it refers to someone who blindly believes that the Hindutva strongman is the long-awaited messiah. Scroll.in is considered a poor source for controversial topics.

So basically what you have content-wise is maybe "'Bhakt' is a pejorative term used to describe those who support Narendra Modi and the BJP on social media. They are perceived as being toxic to opponents and uncritically supportive of the BJP's actions." Now, please explain how this section would fit anywhere in this article, which is about the term 'Godi media', not about the term 'bhakt'. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 06:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You think they should be godi bhakts, andha bhakts, modi bhakts, saffron agents or unbhakts instead of Bhakts? Any way add bhakts to godi media, as they are same as godi media, part of godi media, supporters of godi media or followers of godi media. 122.171.177.166 (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea, Suman420, Terabar, Human3015, Adamstraw99, ReaderofthePack, Primefac, Balogic, Shawn à Montréal, DatGuy, E.M.Gregory, Callanecc, Bejnar, Mrigs13, Rajuonline, VictoriaGrayson, HemaChandra88, Shrikanthv, Maxviwe, and Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI:Your presence is needed to clean the Talk:Narendra Modi#Bhakts. 122.171.177.166 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I will not do anything of the kind, because the notability of the term 'bhakt' has not been proven. Also, it is not for us to synthesise information or to indulge in WP:OR, like you have done here: "Any way add bhakts to godi media, as they are same as godi media, part of godi media, supporters of godi media or followers of godi media." Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 19:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

The term is not popularised by Ravish Kumar And i think the support to NDA government should be modified as of now idk to what but godi media is vast to comprehend Kindly allow edit for others who wants to edit unbiased ly There should be section in which how media is silenced by likes of amit shah in interview ANI should be added to the godi list and sumit avasthi to the anchor list 2405:204:96AD:747D:0:0:1AD3:98AD (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

2nd para in usage and popularity

It is not aligning according to the title NEW title of Criticism could be added or anything appropriate. RashmikantT (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment

Please discuss and comment on the eligibility of taking opinion pieces as facts. Because if that is so, why isn't fox news being taken at its facevalue. All the links, every single one in this page is an opinion piece. Legallybrown (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Legallybrown I have moved your comment to the correct section. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I am new here, did i do some mistake? Legallybrown (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021

Add some alias under the coinage section like.Indian Whatsapp University, Modi's Media. Modia, Lapdog media, Bikau media, Dalal media, Bharkau media, Bnd media, Saffron agents. Corporate controlled media and Dock Media 122.179.108.7 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC) 122.179.108.7 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo request

Please add any photos you find suitable for Godi media article. 122.179.65.171 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at 1,2 and 3 122.179.65.171 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

We cannot use copyrighted images, which all of those are, including the crude cartoon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

Add some alias under the coinage section like.Indian Whatsapp University, Modi's Media. Modia, Lapdog media, Bikau media, Dalal media, Bharkau media, Bnd media, Saffron agents. Corporate controlled media and Dock Media Indian Whatsapp University, Modi's Media. Modia, Lapdog media, Bikau media, Dalal media, Bharkau media, Bnd media, Saffron agents. Corporate controlled media and Dock Media 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 122.179.65.171 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 122.179.65.171 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is very unlikely to happen as many of those sources are unreliable and the the coinage section deals with the origination, or coining, of the term Godi media. It does not deal with any other phrase any one else may have used to refer to the media. Most of those sources also don't use any of the terms you've listed. Also, please do not remove my talk page comments, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

Dakshboi (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC){right wing media consists of online and tv news channels,newespapers the media who follow this idology are   pulse india,Zee News, Times Now, Republic Bharat TV, Republic TV, Aaj Tak, ABP News, Sudarshan News, CNN-News18, India TV, OpIndia, TV Today Network, etc  ]

}}Dakshboi (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[the right media news channels speak about the truth not leftis lies they told truth of communist true identies and fake feminism etc]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Please remove

Media houses and news entities in Godi media include Zee News...TV Today Network, etc.

and add

Media houses and news entities in Godi media include Zee News...and TV Today Network.

"include" and "etc" both indicate that the list is not exhaustive; using both of them is redundant, and this particular sentence sounds better with "include" than with "etc." 64.203.186.80 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

2409:4055:409:1D98:282F:A656:3623:CDF7 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)There are many Godi Journalists who is also known as puppet of BJP government:Arnab goswami( republic bharat),anjana om kashyap (Aaj Tak), rajat sharma (India tv), sudhir choudhary (zee news), deepak chourasia(news nation), amish devgan(news18), Rubika liyaquat (ABP news) and others.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding to Godi Media sites.

Could we classify “Hindustan Times” as Godi Media? Kedits07 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

List of godi media houses

I am removing the section in its entirety. This is apparently an indiscriminate list of all non NDTV media in India. To argue for inclusion of this section, let alone, any media org in that section, there needs to be specific and verifiable claim from someone significant. For instance, The Hindu's Frontline, doesn't explicitly say which media is "Godi media", so citing that source for an unsubstantiated list is a fallacious argument. — hako9 (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with its removal. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-promotion

The section "International Perspectives" seems to have been added as self-promotion by the author of the linked paper, could we remove it? --37.0.94.29 (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)