Talk:Firstpost

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because its a news portal launched by well known media house Network 18 Group and as I mentioed it;s having alexa ranking as 1652 .Notable media persons like Rajdeep Sardesai and Sagarika Ghose regularly writes for this . --Sandy (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Move

This page should be moved to "Firstpost", per http://www.firstpost.com/about-firstpost. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please delete this Article (FirstPost)

There are multiple issues in this article. There is lot of boasting in this article. There are no citations in this article. Lot of Weasel words and Peacock terms are there. There is absolutely no neutral point in this article. This newspaper is a highly biased media source, which publishes baseless stories. Please delete this (FirstPost) article, as soon as possible.
X3K3W9ZX4HXK (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Try WP:AfD. --Muhandes (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to delete the 'FirstPost' article as soon as possible

'FirstPost' is a nonsensical and utterly absurd newspaper. FirstPost is a troll newspaper. It publishes totally meaningless stories. They are also not aware that this is an Encyclopedia, and not their usual trolling magazine. They have published biased, baseless and boasting information. Neutral point of view is nowhere to be seen in this Encyclopedic article. This 'FirstPost' article should be deleted as soon as possible.
Z4X7KK7F3WX4H (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Try WP:AfD. Read about WP:SOCK too. --Muhandes (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Tech2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tech2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Add info about new prominent shows

Add info on the new show vantage by Palki Sharma Upadhyay that has started on 26th Jan 2023. J.wiki.16 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation sentence in lead

@Abhishek0831996 @Editorkamran Please explain why It posted misinformation on multiple occasions. is WP:DUE in lead. WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for it, and also read WP:BRD. Please do not engage in WP:SYNTH. I'll revert Editorkamran's revert.

References

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

About three sources have been provided that confirm Firstpost spread misinformation. Then there is Caravan, Scroll already mentioned on the section saying that Firstpost is serving as a mouthpiece of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP).

It would be better if you don't remove the sentence "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions" from the lead. Firstpost is no different than OpIndia, and Swarajya (magazine). Editorkamran (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The three sources, the two above and TheQuint - Varma, Aishwarya (2023-04-18). "News Organisations Falsely Claim Atiq Ahmed's Vote 'Saved' the UPA Govt in 2008". TheQuint. Retrieved 2023-07-12. - report on that misinfo coverage. I don't see a general trend of coverage of misinfo or other RS concluding the same that it becomes WP:DUE to go into lead.

How is mouthpiece of BJP converting into posting misinfo? Please stop WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in general. You've been warned [1] — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 05:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes that warning was display of your own WP:CIR. You are better off without showing it.

Three reliable sources are more than enough for concluding the fact that "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions". Read WP:SYNTHNOT and read the lead of many other articles such as InfoWars, OpIndia and Swarajya (magazine). They were edited by others in the same manner as this article's lead was, i.e. adding that the outlet has spread misinformation on multiple occasions and adding sources to mention those 'multiple' incidents. You are not supposed to set new rules on your own.

I mentioned Firstpost being a mouthpiece of BJP because it tells about its credibility and nullifies your unnecessary attempts to remove a well-sourced sentence. Editorkamran (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I see 3 reports, which is already sourced in the body which I wasn't objecting. One of them was retracted with a clarification. I believe the sentence in the lead is rather WP:UNDUE absent any further sources that talk about it's misinfo reporting. BJP mouthpiece still need sourcing, altho something could be expanded from The Caravan and Scroll. Please spend the time in finding the sources, not on ad hominem at me — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, who is saying that Firstpost should be called a mouthpiece on the article? It is a fact that Firstpost is a mouthpiece of BJP.[2] I am calling it a 'mouthpiece' as a part of this discussion only.

More sources that have caught Firstpost spreading fake news.[3][4][5][6] The sentence "It posted misinformation on multiple occasions" is completely justified. Editorkamran (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please bring those sources!? — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 11:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction: For some reason, the mobile app didn't render the links and thus I thought you haven't provided any sources — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've restored it. I'd add The Hindu citation as well later. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

The last statement "Fact-checkers have found the Firstpost to have posted disinformation on multiple occasions" is unsubstantiated and appears to be added by someone looking to discredit FirstPost for unknown reasons. I clicked the "references" cited and found no proof that FirstPost intentionally mis-reported anything. Instead I found that many Indian news sites had mistakenly shared an incorrect photo or information from an unknown source. In other research online I found FirstPost to be more accurate and unbiased than other new organizations. Ob1knob777 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: As "disinformation" is deliberate, I've changed the wording to "incorrect information", which is a reasonable summary of the next two sentences. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This is still not justified. Many News/Media organisations regardless of their size have intentionally as well as accidentally posted misinformation while other media outlets such as NewYork Times and BBC are never targetted for misinformation. This is a deliberate attempt to target Firstpost which is a very credible international News/Media organisation. Just by adding 2 citations, one cannot discredit authenticity of news organisation. This seems very deliberate and obsessive attempt to ruin image of international news and media organisation because it has political and social biases just like every other news and media organisation. Kandarp.gautam (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

sigh

In 2023, it falsely reported that Atiq Ahmed's vote had ‘Saved' the UPA Govt in 2008. Would people stop putting saved in scare quotes? The word doesn't only have a religious meaning (and I don't see why the internet has to be full of atheists in any case). 2001:BB6:7A98:2358:F001:B12E:34D8:B145 (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

At least the quotation typography seems wrong. —Mykhal (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This article has been vandalised

This article uses 1 or 2 inaccurate news reports or possible misinformation as a means to discredit all of Firstpost's journalism.

They mention these in the very 2nd sentence. This is a clear case of deliberate vandalism and in fact actual misinformation by someone that does not like Firstpost. ZeOmnipotent (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

​​​ I too am not sure if it's a good practice to mention several maybe just random cases of misinformation in intro of the article. I don't know scene in India nor this medium except from single recent YT video I saw. I just tried to move it into new criticism section at the end. My attempts were labeled as "whitewashing". —Mykhal (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think it's a clear case of "deliberate vandalism" at all. The lede is supposed to summarise the content contained in the body, and the sentence that Firstpost has posted misinformation is a correct summary of content in the body. GraziePrego (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You know what, I actually don't think that's right. It does feel undue to have this in the opening, I think it brings too much undue attention to criticisms made of the outlet. I will remove that sentence. GraziePrego (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

​ Btw, I just wanted to retract my post for now, as I noted there's a dedicated talk thread here above about that; to study it more (and I also agree that this section name is not ideal). —Mykhal (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

"change from provided missinormation to provide correct information" SonnuTayde (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)