Talk:Fake news in India/Archive 1

Kashmir section only presents Indian narrative
International newspapers have reported 'beatings and torture' by Indian security forces (see BBC report, NYT report). But the Kashmir section in this Wikipedia article labels reports of 'suffering' as fake news (and cites only Indian newspapers for this). That's why I labelled this section as 'unbalanced towards certain viewpoints'. --Ankush (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ankush, can you please go ahead and make the changes required to make the section in consideration more balanced. So that the tag can be removed as soon as possible. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The doubt raised here has already been addressed on the page#section - Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status#Social media, activism and misinformation. There is no need to duplicate the information here. I am removing the template on the basis of this as that section counters the points raised by the user. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The section seems to take it for granted that whatever the government calls "fake news" is indeed fake news. Since the Kashmiri media is totally shut down, and the Indian media has been arm-twisted to follow the party line, we have no idea what is fake and what is not. I think the entire section needs to be attributed to the sources making the claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Point noted and it makes sense. I will address accordingly in the article. Will take some time, unless someone else does it first. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does adding the word "alleged" to the sentence clear this particular sentence of biasedness?
 * In August 2019, following the Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's Article 370, the Indian government went into war-footing fighting alleged fake news related to people suffering, lack of supplies and other administration issues.
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. The whole section needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. Evidently, the current write-up is not talking about fake news per so, but about how supposedly the "Indian government" is fighting fake news, basically reproducing planted news stories. The government's own fake news, exposed by BBC, NYT, The Independent etc. never find any mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have done a decent job for now. Will take this up again only after a few days from my side, unless anyone else wants to make changes. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Twitter accounts
Dawn reported that 200 Twitter accounts were suspended on 20 August, for unspecified reasons. India Today wrote on 5 September that they were suspended for writing "false and provocative content" as reported by Indian authorities. OpIndia claimed that it was a "fake news gang" that got busted. Go figure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete an entire controversial section with no explanation?
User talk:Lebeka I reverted your blanking of the section related to CAA with no explanation. Please help explain why it should go? DTM (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

256 fake news sites
someone should add -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/265-fake-news-websites-in-over-65-countries-managed-by-indian-influence-networks-study/article29967820.ece
 * This is a good one. I wonder who broke the story first? DTM (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this section trustworthy ? EU Disinfo lab lists itself as an "NGO". Hence making their claim weak. The section looks like towing a pro-Pakistan stance which violates neutrality. Besides user DBigXRay's credibility is doubtful Thedoctor24 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Tagging for issues
Article needs copyediting for WP:NPOV and seems to indulge in WP:RECENTISM. Not all of these cases pass a WP:10YEARTEST. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Have removed the tags, but I'm concerned that the entire section for "Examples" is warranting instances of WP:RECENTISM. There are dozens of fake news cases reported in a year, we shouldn't be covering them all. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

ENGVAR
Is this article written in Indian English? And is the term "tied up" idiomatic in that variant of English? Here, it is used like "partnered". I don't want to change it if it is considered correct usage. Elizium23 (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is being used like partnered... and although tied up is ok in Indian English (as far as I know), I will change it to partnered. Thanks for pointing it out. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the article more accessible to International audiences along with Indian ones. Hmx098amd64 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

So much False Info on this page
The sentence quoting NaMo App as Fake news promoting app is a false claim. The App was just developed present People's and  Prime Minister Narendra Modi's view on several topics in India. There is a lot of hatred spreading and misinformation on this page. The Media houses like India Today generally show the view of Indian National Congress and the Communist Parties in India. Thus we cannot consider India Today to ge an unbaised source. The Information regarding Anti-Muslim propaganda of BJP is a false claim made by some media houses in India and infact there is a little official evidence that exists to favour some of the small disputes that were in no way related to the party. Third The BBC,The NDTV has always spread anti-hindu agenda in India.Infact after the Delhi roits BBC,NY Times and Washington Post represented Hindus as the roit provokers although the reality was entirely opposite. Hmx098amd64 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia uses only WP:RS. The content is not disputed unless you can clearly state what is the problematic text. In any case, I am trying to constructively improve the article, so please stop reverting my edits. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See the problematic text is making the right wing of politics solely responsible for fake news. The article must cover the malpractices of both the sides. Let me cite some links that are totally a fake news by sources mentioned in this talk:- https://www.thetruepicture.org/ndtv-the-wire-journalists-fake-news-crpf-pension/ https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/british-hindus-have-lost-faith-in-bbc/story-RUBD1DbhTO3MdlacLnIvYI.html and also this news article:- https://www.scoopwhoop.com/NDTV-And-Modi-Cant-Stand-Each-Other-And-Its-Roots-Lie-In-2002/ I admit the fact that there is a lot of fake news spread by right wing faction of politics but at the same time there has been equivalent false reporting at the left front which is not properly covered in the article. These news channels and websites talk of THE RIGHT TO SPEECH but they do not witness the fact that they are able to do so due to much liberal press and media laws in India. The fact is we are covering just one side of the coin and this can lead to misguidance of younger audiences. I do not deny the facts mentioned but i would be happier if the Article gets more balanced Hmx098amd64 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are worried about WP:DUE, please WP:DOITYOURSELF and stop reverting others' edits, especially when we are trying to address the same concerns that you are. Editors only summarise what reliable sources state, and the 3 links you shared (of which HT is the only RS) do not mention any other significant POV regarding fake news, they merely state a POV that some have not been happy with what has been published. Finally, my last edit that you reverted was more of a style and grammar cleanup, so I am confused as to why you even reverted it. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

But you must come with some ground reality. You cant blame just the right wing as in this portion "In India, fake news has been predominantly spread by the right-wing of the political spectrum, especially by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and many media outlets aligned with it." While it is a known fact that both the wings are equally accused for the same, you could write this as:- "In India, fake news has been predominantly spread by both the wings of the Indian political spectrum, especially by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress(INC) and many media outlets aligned to them." This presents a more balanced scenario. Becuase the thing is if you look at the Political atmosphere out of your native place "GOA" you can see a wide diversity in opinions and if you just refer to the right wing it creates a psychological effect that the left-wing is passive in the matter. But at the same time if you analyse the ground reality of social media trends it is very evident that there is an equivalent amount of fake news. In the name of fake news some fanatic people of left-wing write anti-hindu and anti-national content while some people of right-wing post anti-muslim content which is also no less than being anti-national.Also we cannot blame the whole of either faction as a whole because there is a much bigger number of wise in both the wings people who write a lot of meaningful balanced content on political issues .We both may be partisan in our views(And it is perfectly natural and good for a human to be so) but if we are on a platform like Wikipedia some balance on such serious political issues is expected from us in order to maintain an air of healthy political analysis .Presenting both viewpoints is extremely nessecary. Hmx098amd64 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the very next sentence states that there have been fake Twitter accounts reported of the INC, so WP:DUE has been taken care of. Please use WP:RS to support your statement that the INC's related media outlets have also been accused of peddling fake news, and it can then be added here. (Currently the stated source only talks about the BJP and the right wing). And just to clarify, the Congress is nowhere close to being the "left-wing", as you keep stating. Lastly, please be mindful of WP:3RR, which you have violated already with your edit warring. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to separately state UPA, NDA and the LEFT faction. This could make article more clear and informative with clearer terminology Hmx098amd64 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually i am new to Wikipedia (as an editor) .And I am just learning from mistakes buddy. Pls don't hate me people. Hmx098amd64 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better that we share our revisions on this talk page and then publish the Common Minimum so as to prevent any further dispute. Hmx098amd64 (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

And give more reliable and fact-focused content rather than some opinion driven article on this platform as it looks now. Hmx098amd64 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for agreeing to achieve WP:CONSENSUS before edit warring over content disputes. I have since removed all the opinion pieces and only kept significant ones by reputed journalists. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You are just targetting a group you didn't mention NDTV and India today Kirtan Hora (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * what do you mean? which group? Be clear and specific. There are reference for all the information here. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

eu disinfo lab
eu disinfo lab is allegedly pakistan funded, so it cant be considered as reliable source   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Followbrocode (talk • contribs) 18:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Alleged by Indian media, yes. That's not a reason for removing the sentence as you did here. The claim is attributed to EU DisinfoLab, as is proper (and sourced to The Hindu); it's not stated in Wikipedia's voice. The sentence is also an essential part of the altogether well-sourced paragraph. What can the reader make of a paragraph beginning "By 2020, the number of such pro-India fake news websites was revealed to have grown to 750 across 116 countries", when the original statement about those "such" websites has disappeared, along with the original number of websites (265)? Please have some consideration for the prose of our articles. I have restored the sentence you removed. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC).

Badrinathan (2021)
TrangaBellam (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding serious issue
Hi, I have looked through this article on some serious issues on some of the statements.

"An example of such channel was Sudhir Chaudhary's DNA on Zee News of claiming about nano-gps technology in the new bank notes issued by Indian government."

Please note that this media hardly makes any mistake unlike Op India and Alt News which have a quite good history over these. They do too, like BBC News but they are few in number. Therefore, these lines need to be removed to prevent people from giving false information and to prevent using or maligning the image of the media or the person on whom this article is based. If you wish we can have a productive discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just another Wikipedian editor (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've restored the last stable version from one month ago. Should be good now? — DaxServer (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick action, Dax. Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late DaxServer, but I want you to do the make your attention here as well.

"The NaMo app, an app dedicated to Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, was reported to have promoted and spread fake news."

Same is the case here as well. This app also does not seem to be spreading false information one after the other, the cases are very few i.e. 1 or 2 and that too probably not intentionally. There has been no case of spreading fake news for more than 7 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just another Wikipedian editor (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)