Talk:Rahul Roushan
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rahul Roushan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Link edit
I have self-reverted my linking; please don't revert for the time being. ∯WBGconverse 17:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary Information? edit
Do we need to include the fact that Op-India application to be accredited as a fact checker was rejected? I am not sure but I think this is an unnecessary information since the same is mentioned in the Op-India wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prav001 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Roushan was the named applicant. I've revised the sentence to make this clearer. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
A bias edit
Nearly every news channel/site has published fake news on atleast one ocassion. So do we even mention in front of its CEO's page that he/she is a CEO of the news channel/paper/forum that has published fake news? No!!! Then why here? The deeper I am digging into wiki, the more I am finding a left-wing bias on most of the articles here. If this continues, I will have to stop editing on such an unreliable(possibly biased) site.Parlebourbon3 (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Parlebourbon3: I've left a note on your talk page about your reverts of what you seem to mistakenly think is repetitive material, but I can explain the reason for this here. No, we don't normally do that, OpIndia is an exception because we have decided that (quoting here from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources):
- Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. OpIndia is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. OpIndia was rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network when it applied for accreditation in 2019. In the 2020 discussion, most editors expressed support for deprecating OpIndia. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated. The site has directly attacked (and doxed) Wikipedia editors who edit India-related articles. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor has voluntarily disclosed the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia may request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. See also: Swarajya.
Doug Weller talk 13:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "has published fake news" is well-supported by the sources in Special:Permalink/970092805 § cite note-Fake news-2. The reader may also click on the link to the OpIndia article for more information. — Newslinger talk 06:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry but you referencing left wing media to call out a few fake/premature news is not done. You guys can do it obviously but the unbiased nature of Wikipedia used to be its charm.
sadly no more 2405:201:2018:9811:4044:196E:41ED:8AB0 (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just to give context on the sentence that needs to be edited. I am pasting the line below:
"Rahul Roushan (born 29 January 1980) is an Indian blogger and businessman. Roushan founded Faking News, a satirical news website, and is the CEO of OpIndia, a right-wing news portal that has published fake news"
It is mentioned above (and in the page) that the person concernced ("Rahul Roushan") is the creator of OpIndia which is a fake news portal. When clicked on the source for that(here [1]) I noticed that there is no mention of OpIndia being a fake news portal but actually talks about another news portal that he had created called Faking News which was a satirical news site. This has been like this for quite some time now with no change on the status. The error has been here for far too long now. It is either part of someone intending to malign someone's (or some organization's) image without proof or a child played around with the edit tab of Wikipedia. Hope this clears it up and the particular line including the 'fake news' is removed from the article. Sanketh4564 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Faking News the satirical website and OpIndia the fake news website are well delineated in the article. As far as the sourcing for OpIndia publishing fake news goes, check the cite bundle in the lead sentence – there's 6 sources that attest to OpIndia publishing fake news. The Daily Pioneer source you references is about the satirical website, not OpIndia. Volteer1 (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, that was the reference attached to the statement saying that 'OpIndia publishes fake news' which is why I referenced it. It looks like it's been removed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanketh4564 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC) There is a history of fake news publication in all the media houses. Tell me one new website/portal that has not published a single fake news till now? If you agree with me, then why single out OpIndia saying that it is the only one that makes fake news and change others to fake news as well. Does this make sense to you that all the news portals has published fake news every once in a while (Here is an example of NDTV doing it</ref>https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/12/09/fake-news-government-on-ndtv-report-that-covid-vaccine-proposals-were-not-cleared</ref>). Recently a fake news was spread that Africa is returning India's shipment of COVID vaccines. Major publishers have published this ([2][3][4]). So now atleast you agree that the tag 'that has published fake news' should be attributed to all portals as they have done that a lot of times. Or do you have any particular reason why OpIndia is singled out while ignoring the rest of the news portals in the entire world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanketh4564 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.dailypioneer.com/2014/sunday-edition/making-faking-news.html
- ^ https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/south-africa-returns-1-million-covid-19-vaccine-doses-to-serum-institute/story/431454.html
- ^ https://odishabytes.com/fact-check-is-south-africa-returning-covid-19-vaccines-to-india/
- ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-safrica-astrazenec-idUSKBN2AG08P
Lead edit
The lead section reads:
- Roushan founded Faking News, a satirical news website, and is the CEO of OpIndia, a right-wing news portal that has published fake news.
The sentence structure seems weird. It's like saying "XYZ is the CEO of ABC News, a news portal that has published news about <something specific>". If one wants to emphasise on the fact that OpIndia has published fake news in the past, one could write "known for publishing fake news", but that wouldn't really be accurate as that isn't the main thing it's known for; it's known for its political bias.
Hence, I suggested it to be changed to:
- Roushan founded Faking News, a satirical news website, and is the CEO of OpIndia, a right-wing news portal that has been criticized for publishing fake news.
cc: @Vanamonde93:
- I'm genuinely not seeing what the problem is. We're not saying "CEO of OpIndia which has published fake news", we say "OpIndia, a right-wing news portal that has published fake news". We say it's a news portal. Adding the "has been criticized for publishing" simply makes the sentence more contorted, and also makes it seem like it's in doubt. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)