This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Niraj Sharma (October 24, 2024). "Wikipedia's credibility at stake as its editors target more Indian media outlets". NewsDrum. Retrieved October 24, 2024. Following the Delhi High Court warning in ANI matter, the Wikipedia editors replicated similar edits across a few more large Indian media outlets including Aaj Tak, India TV, Times Now and NDTV.
Regarding the Template:Peacock, the lead currently includes, as just one example, this phrase: The company is considered to be a legacy brand that pioneered independent news broadcasting in India, and is credited for launching the first 24x7 news channel and the first lifestyle channel in the country. This is loaded and ambiguous wording which implies importance without supporting that. It also includes claims which are not properly supported in the body of the article, which is poor practice per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Who "considers" them this? How are they "pioneers"? Who "credited" them with this, and why is this credit so important that it belongs in the first paragraph? Please see WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, and WP:NOTSOAP. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ NDTV broadcasted Modi's Temple inaugration in Abu Dhabi without break on 14th Feb 2024. Meanwhile the protesting farmers suffered in perils at Shambhu border, NDTV didnt spared a moment of screen time during the temple inaugration. BlackOrchidd (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I noticed that the current phrasing describes the Adani Group as 'noted for its affinity with the ruling BJP government' and references The Economist’s statement about the news channel’s editorial shift after the acquisition. To maintain neutrality, would it be better to rephrase this to focus on the factual aspects of the acquisition, with The Economist’s perspective on the editorial change presented as a cited observation rather than implying a specific relationship between Adani and the government? Additionally, should we include the resignations following the takeover as a separate point to ensure clarity? I’d love to hear your thoughts. I.Mahesh (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the wording challenges neutrality. It shouldn't be deleted entirely, but placing that phrase in the intro paragraphs gives in undue weight. CNN and The Washington Post don't have similar incidents given undue weight in their intro paragraphs. Rshah1010 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with mentioning the Adani Group's acquisition and the resulting perceived change in NDTV's political orientation in the lead section. The main problem is that NDTV's history from 1984 to 2021 is sparsely summarised in the lead section. If the lead were expanded to include a proportionate description of NDTV's earlier history, there would not be a due weight issue. — Newslingertalk01:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
