Talk:Swarajya (magazine)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Swarajya (magazine) 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Erroneous References made to support the assertion that Swarajya propagates fake news
editThe criticism page makes a blatant assertion: "Journalists working for Swarajya have propagated communally charged fake news via their personal accounts, and the former has created fake reports for the website"
This is a clear and unambigious assertion of "spreading fake news". However, the sources linked are far from satisfactory.
The above article has no mention of Swarajya. Shefali Vaidya does not work for Swarajya, nor does she call herself a journalist so any comments made by her are irrelevant to Swarajya. Morover, the article itself says that she apologised and deleted the tweet. This reference proves absolutely nothing.
There is no basis in the above article that Swati Goel Sharma of Swarajya wrote fake news. She just tweeted about an eyewitness account by a third party. That eyewitness account is not disputed by AltNews. Their only objection is that the eyewitness account was "false". How is anybody to know whether eyewitness accounts are true or false at the beginning? Both OpIndia and Swati Goel Sharma of Swarajya just reported about the eyewitness account. If the eyewitness changed his statement,it doesn't become fake news
In this incident, OpIndia has recorded their conversation with an official of the local police. The Quint itself states that he can be heard saying "they were prepared". So how is this fake news? They clearly only reported what was recorded that "the attack might not have been spontaneous"
The Balrampur police denying it doesn't make it fake news, when OpIndia clearly has audio recordings.
Plus again, Swati Goel Sharma just reported the news article by OpIndia.
The article has nothing to do with Swarajya. None of the original tweets come from Swarajya or people associated with them. Retweets don't count as "news"
All of these sources are insufficient to prove that Swarajya and it's journos peddle fake news. I am posting this here, because it appears to me that Wikipedia is incredibly biased against Swarajya. Just making edits will be ineffective it seems here. I hope people will not censor me and will provide a proper rebuttal.
Whiny teenager (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the latter part of the statement in question: "and the former has created fake reports for the website". I have did it because none of the references make any mention about fake reports in Swarajya website.
Whiny teenager (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Can the blacklist of this website be removed?
editWhy has Swarajya been blacklisted from Wikipedia? This appears to be a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality. Is there a way to reverse the blacklist? Shivj80 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Per the Reliable Sources Noticeboard,
Due to persistent abuse, Swarajya is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Swarajya is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the 2020 discussion, most editors expressed support for deprecating Swarajya. Editors consider the publication biased or opinionated. Swarajya was formerly the parent publication of OpIndia, and frequently republishes content from OpIndia under the "Swarajya Staff" byline.
You'd need to start a conversation about this source there, presenting third-party evidence that Swarajya is no longer being spammed and that it's a reliable source. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)