{{Shortcut|WP:OPINDIA}}
{{Infobox
| title = [[OpIndia]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label2 = source type
| data2 = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3 = publisher
| data3 = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5 = website
| data5 =
| label6 = classification
| data6 = [[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=]] Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] in most cases.
}}
Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[WT:WHITELIST|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 {{pslink|International Fact-Checking Network}} when it applied for accreditation in 2019. In the [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#OpIndia and Swarajya|2020 discussion]], most editors expressed support for [[WP:DEPREC|deprecating]] OpIndia. Editors consider the site [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]]. OpIndia has directly attacked and [[Doxing|doxed]] Wikipedia editors who edit India-related articles. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the [[WP:OUTING|outing policy]], unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia may [[:m:Legal/Legal Policies#Defense of Contributors|request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation]], although support is not guaranteed. ''See also: {{pslink|Swarajya}}.''
== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#Scroll, OpIndia, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog etc.]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#OpIndia and Swarajya]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:OpIndia, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-b" id="OpIndia"
| [[OpIndia]] {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:OPINDIA}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu|b=y}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#Scroll, OpIndia, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog etc.|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#OpIndia and Swarajya|2]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2020|stale=n}}
| Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[WT:WHITELIST|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 {{pslink|International Fact-Checking Network}} when it applied for accreditation in 2019. In the [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#OpIndia and Swarajya|2020 discussion]], most editors expressed support for [[WP:DEPREC|deprecating]] OpIndia. Editors consider the site [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]]. OpIndia has directly attacked and [[Doxing|doxed]] Wikipedia editors who edit India-related articles. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the [[WP:OUTING|outing policy]], unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia may [[:m:Legal/Legal Policies#Defense of Contributors|request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation]], although support is not guaranteed. ''See also: {{pslink|Swarajya}}.''
| {{WP:RSPUSES|opindia.com|opindia.in}}
|}